Page 1 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5346 OF 2013

DIGAMBER & ORS. .. APPELLANTS

VS.

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. .. RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

Leave has been granted by this Court vide order

dated 8.7.2013.

2.This appeal is directed against the judgment and

order dated 05.10.2005 passed by the High Court of

Page 2 C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006

Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad passed in

First Appeal No. 646 of 1998 whereby the High Court

set aside the judgment and award dated 02.05.1998 of

the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded

passed in land acquisition reference case and restored

the compensation awarded at the rate of Rs.50,000/-

per hectare by the Special Land Acquisition Officer,

Nanded by allowing the appeal filed by the

respondents.

3. It is contended by Ms. Bina Madhavan, the learned

counsel for the appellants that the impugned judgment

is contrary to the legal evidence on record

particularly Exhs. 20-21 which are the sale deeds of

the plots covered in the same area that were prior to

the notification that is before 14.06.1990 which sale

instances were very well considered by the reference

court for comparison and the finding of fact was

recorded that the said instances are comparable to the

acquired land to that of the plots covered in the sale

2

2

Page 3 C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006

deeds. Therefore, it is contended that the acquired

land has the similar non agricultural potentiality and

the State Government had acquired the said land in

favour of the Maharashtra Industrial Development

Corporation (in short ‘the Corporation’) for the

purpose of formation of industrial estate and sale of

the plots for commercial purposes. It is urged by the

learned counsel that the judgment and award passed by

the reference court is erroneously set aside by the

High Court as it has found fault with it in placing

reliance upon the sale instances and has wrongly re-

determined the market value of the land which findings

recorded by the High Court in its judgment are not

only erroneous in law but also suffers from error in

fact and therefore, the same is liable to be set

aside.

4.The further legal contention urged by the learned

counsel for the appellants is that learned reference

Judge has rightly awarded the compensation of the

3

3

Page 4 C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006

acquired land after re-determining its market value

based on legal evidence on record at the rate of

Rs.5/- per sq. feet. The documentary evidence produced

by the appellants are sale deeds marked as Exhs. 22

and 23 pertaining to years 1991 and 1993 respectively

and Exhs. 24 and 25 pertaining to the year 1994, ie.

post acquisition notification period. That the plots

covered in the said sale instances are non

agricultural plots of Venkateshnagar Layout which are

comparable to the acquired land is the finding of fact

recorded by the learned Judge of the reference court

on proper appreciation of legal evidence on record.

The same is supported by the decision of this Court in

the case of The special Land Acquisition Officer,

BTDA, Bagalkot Vs. Mohd. Hanif Sahbi Bawa Sahib

1

,

wherein this Court in the aforesaid case has held that

the reference court can take into consideration the

plots which are covered in the sale instances which

were small bits of land, if the acquired land is

comparable to the land covered in sale deeds and that

1

JT 2002 (3) SC 176

4

4

Page 5 C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006

placing reliance on such sale instances by the

reference court for re-determination of the market

value of the acquired land is permissible in law. It

is further urged by the learned counsel that this

vital aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the

learned Judge of the High Court while passing the

impugned judgment and award by setting aside the

judgment and award of the reference court and restored

the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition

Officer which is vitiated both on facts and on law.

Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside and the

judgment of the reference court must be restored.

5.Further, it is contended by her that the learned

Judge of the High Court has erred in affirming the

compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition

Officer at Rs. 50,000/- per hectare of the acquired

land ignoring its potentiality as it is acquired for

the purpose of formation of industrial estate with a

view to carve out the plots and allot the same in

5

5

Page 6 C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006

favour of allottees/private industrial entrepreneurs

at commercial rates for construction of the commercial

and industrial buildings upon such allotted plots.

6.It is further contended that the impugned judgment

and award of the High Court is otherwise contrary to

the principles of law laid down by this Court in a

catena of cases, and, therefore requested this Court

to award just and reasonable compensation as awarded

by the reference court.

7.Mrs. Asha Gopalan Nair, the learned counsel for

respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr.Shyam Divan, learned

Senior Counsel for respondent No.3 have sought to

justify the impugned judgment of the High Court, inter

alia, contending that the learned single Judge of the

High Court has rightly set aside the impugned judgment

in the First Appeal after recording valid and cogent

reasons for rejecting the finding recorded by the

reference court on contentious issues by placing

6

6

Page 7 C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006

reliance upon the pre and post sale instances in

relation to the non residential plots which are not

comparable to the acquired land. Therefore, it is

submitted that the High Court has rightly came to the

conclusion on proper re-appraisal of evidence and held

that the finding of fact recorded by the reference

court in placing reliance upon the sale instances is in

relation to small plots, whereas the land acquired is a

bigger area. Therefore, the plots covered under sale

instances are not comparable to the acquired land in

order to arrive at a conclusion and record finding that

the acquired land is comparable to the plots referred

to supra. Further, the land of the owners has not

acquired non agricultural potentiality and re-

determination of the market value by the learned

reference Judge on the basis of sale instances is

erroneous and contrary to the judgments of this Court.

The High Court, in support of its findings and

conclusions has placed reliance upon the judgment of

this Court reported in Saraswati Devi and others Vs.

7

7

Page 8 C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006

U.P. Government & Anr

2

. and another judgment in Union

of India Vs. Zila Singh and Ors.

3

wherein this court

after interpretation of Section 23 of Land Acquisition

Act, 1894 (in short ‘the L.A. Act), has held that the

sale price in respect of a small piece of land (one

bigha in that case) cannot be the basis for

determination of market value of a vast stretch of

land (5484 bighas in that case). Therefore, the

impugned judgment of the High Court in setting aside

the judgment of the reference court must be accepted by

this Court and does not call for interference by this

Court. Hence, they have prayed for dismissal of this

appeal.

8. With reference to the above rival legal contentions,

the following points would arise for consideration of

this Court:

2

AIR 1992 SC 1620

3

(2003) 10 SCC 166

8

8

Page 9 C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006

I.Whether the impugned judgment passed by

the High Court by reversing the

judgment and award of the reference

court is vitiated on the ground of

erroneous finding and also error in

law?

II.For what award the appellants are

entitled to in this appeal?

9.The first point is required to be answered in the

affirmative in favour of the appellants for the

following reasons:-

The State of Maharashtra in exercise of its

statutory power acquired the lands in favour of the

Corporation by publishing the notification in the

government gazette on 7.09.1991, and final notification

published in the government gazette on 12.07.1992, for

the purpose of industrial development by the

Corporation in the State of Maharashtra. Undisputedly

the acquisition of land is for non residential purpose

9

9

Page 10 C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006

as it was required to establish industries through

industrial entrepreneurs in the acquired land by

forming industrial estate and carving out the

industrial plots by the Corporation, which is purely a

commercial purpose. This important aspect of the

matter was required to be kept in mind by the Special

Land Acquisition Officer at the time of determining the

market value of the acquired land in exercise of his

statutory power under Section 11 of the L.A. Act and

the Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded

compensation at Rs. 50,000/- per hectare of the

acquired land which does not reflect the correct market

value.

10. Feeling aggrieved by the said award the

appellants herein sought for reference to the reference

court by filing claim petition under Section 34 of the

Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 for

enhancement of compensation by re-determining the

market value. The Collector made reference to the

reference court by acceding to the request of the land

10

10

Page 11 C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006

owners for re-determination of the market value of the

acquired land. The appellants produced documentary

evidence of sale instances of the plots which are

situated in the near proximity of the acquired land and

the reference court has examined their claim for

enhancement of compensation and rightly re-determined

the market value of their land by placing reliance upon

the sale instances. The said claim was opposed by the

respondents by filing their written statement, inter

alia, contending that compensation awarded by the land

acquisition officer is as per the sale consideration of

the land covered in the sale instances which are

situated nearby the acquired land. The claimants have

rightly placed strong reliance upon the sale instances

of small plots which are formed in the New

Venkateshnagar layout. The sale deed Exh. 21 dated

17.3.1989 shows that the 120 sq. feet was sold for Rs.

3500/- and Exhs. 20 and 22 dated 03.11.1989 which plots

measuring 1200 sq. feet sold for Rs.9000/- i.e. Rs.

7.50/- per sq. feet. The aforesaid sale deeds are no

11

11

Page 12 C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006

doubt prior to the issuance of preliminary notification

under Section 4 of the L.A. Act. The other sale

instance produced by the claimants, Exh. 23 from GRC

136 shows that plot No.22 about 1500 sq. feet has been

sold for 18,000/- at the rate of Rs. 12 per sq. feet.

The sale deed is dated 31.05.1993 i.e. three years

later from the date of issuance of preliminary

notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act. Another

sale deed Exh. 14 is in respect of G.No.605 wherein

plot No. 8 measuring 45 x 14 sq. feet was sold for Rs.

35,000/- on 21.12.1994. The appellants also produced

the sale deed dated 16.02.1990 at Exh. 33 showing that

plot No. 34 and 35 admeasuring 60 x 30 feet situated at

Venkateshnagar Layout was sold for Rs. 11,000/-.

Another sale deed Exh. 34 shows that one plot No. 13

measuring 40 x 30 feet was sold for Rs. 9,000/- on

02.11.1991 which are all after the preliminary

notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act. The

learned reference Judge has rightly placed reliance

upon the said sale instances for comparison and held

12

12

Page 13 C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006

that the acquired land is comparable to the plots

covered in the sale deeds referred to supra, as it has

acquired non-agricultural potentiality and the acquired

land is situated in the near proximity to the plots

covered in the sale deeds.

11. The learned Judge of the reference court has

referred to the notes of inspection of the site made by

the Assistant Collector and Land Acquisition Officer on

21.11.1990, wherein they have stated that the acquired

land is situated adjacent to Bhokar and on the eastern

side of Bhokar Umri Road i.e. towards southern side of

Bhokar - Bhainsa Road, and population of Bhokar is

about 12000. It is further stated that there are

various facilities in the said area like school and

college. Bhokar is connected by Railway and State Road

Transport. The learned reference Judge after referring

to the factual contention urged on behalf of the Land

Acquisition Officer and the claim of the appellants and

placing reliance upon the documentary and oral evidence

on record, passed judgment by awarding just and

13

13

Page 14 C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006

reasonable compensation by re-determining the market

value. The land G.No.133 is acquired for the purpose

of Mini MIDC i.e. for non agricultural purpose and

further with reference to Map. 4, the acquired land is

on Nanded Bhokar – Bhainsa Highway. Further, on the

basis of receipts produced at Exhs. 17 and 18, the

claimant No. 2 Ashok Narayan Kondalwar has converted

his share of land from G.No. 123 into non-agricultural

purpose. To substantiate this fact the claimants

produced the certificate issued by the Talathi, which

is marked as Exh. 19. The learned reference Judge has

also taken note of the fact that there is no evidence

to prove that the acquired land was converted for non

agricultural purpose prior to 14.06.1990. From Exhs.

40 and 41, it is clear that the possession of this land

was taken on 19.6.1995 and prior to that date claimant

No. 2 Ashok Narayan Kondalwar had converted his share

of land into non agricultural purpose. The learned

Judge did not consider the said documentary evidence

and erroneously held that they are not helpful to the

14

14

Page 15 C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006

appellants. However, he has rightly placed reliance

upon the sale instances on record and come to the

correct conclusion and held that there is tendency for

price of the land to increase in the locality and found

fault with the Land Acquisition Officer in not

determining the market value of the acquired land at

the rate of Rs. 5/- per sq. feet after deducting 40%

area of the acquired land which is used for the purpose

of development. Therefore, the appellants are entitled

for compensation as awarded by the learned Judge of the

reference court.

12. The learned reference Judge has recorded a finding

of fact stating that the acquired land is having non

agricultural potentiality as it has been acquired for

MIDC for the purpose of industrial development and

further, it is an admitted fact that no crops were

raised by the appellants upon the land. The claim of

the appellants was partly allowed by the reference

Judge holding that they are entitled for enhanced

15

15

Page 16 C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006

compensation at the rate of Rs. 5/- per sq. feet as

per the calculations made in the judgment of the

reference court.

13. Accordingly, the reference Judge has rightly re-

determined the market value of the acquired land and

awarded all statutory benefits like 30% solatium and

interest and additional compound interest from August,

1993 to 6

th

March, 1995. Statutory interest under

Section 38 of the L.A. Act was given, on enhanced

compensation from 19.06.1995 to 18.06.1996 and

thereafter @ 15% from 19.06.1996 till the date of

realization of the amount by the appellants.

14. We have carefully examined the factual and legal

contentions urged on behalf of the parties and also

the findings recorded by the learned reference Judge

in the judgment impugned in the First Appeal filed by

the respondents before the High Court. The reference

court has rightly placed reliance upon the sale

16

16

Page 17 C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006

instances for comparison with that of the acquired

land after satisfying the fact that it has also

acquired non-agricultural potentiality. The subsequent

sale deeds in relation to the residential plots of New

Venkateshnagar Layout, which were sold after the

preliminary notification was issued in relation to the

acquired land, the learned reference Judge has noticed

the same and held that there is a trend of escalation

of the price of land situated in the proximity of the

acquired land. The said finding of fact is erroneously

set aside by the High Court, holding that the learned

reference Judge has erroneously applied the sale

instances of the small residential plots of New

Venkateshnagar Layout to the land acquired by the

State government in favour of the M.I.D.C. The Land

Acquisition Officer while determining the market value

has considered the acquired land as agricultural land

and awarded inadequate compensation in favour of the

appellants.

17

17

Page 18 C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006

15.We have carefully examined the factual and legal

contentions urged on behalf of the respondents keeping

in view the decision of this Court in the case of

Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla Vs. Special Land

Acquisition Officer

4

, wherein this Court after

interpreting Section 23 of the L.A. Act, 1894, referred

to the various legal principles laid down by the Bombay

High Court and this Court regarding the relevant

criteria to be followed by the Land Acquisition

Collector and Courts for determination of the market

value of the land acquired for public purpose. At

paragraph 5 of the above referred judgment, there is a

reference to the Bombay High Court’s judgment rendered

in the case of Nama Padu Huddar Vs. State of

Maharashtra

5

,

the relevant extracted portion is

reproduced below:

“Judicial note can be taken of the fact

that the industrial growth in and around

Bombay has started with rapid stride from the

year 1965 onwards. In fact, the growth is by

leaps and bounds in the magnitude of

industries as well as number of industries

4

(2012) 7 SCC 595

5

1994 BCJ 316

18

18

Page 19 C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006

and virtually all the industries of the

country are represented on the industrial

estates scattered on this highway. It is also

an admitted position that on this highway on

all sides the facility of electric supply is

available as also of abundant water supply.

In the area in question it is also an

admitted position that all the lands have

suitable access roads to Zila Parishad and

State Highway including lands which are the

farthest from the highway.”

16. Further, in para 7 of Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul

Hamid Mulla’s judgment, reference is made to the

judgments in Shashikant Krishanji v. Land Acquisition

Officer

6

and Nama Padu Huddar v. State of Maharashtra

(supra), relevant portion of which is extracted

below:-

“The land involved in the reference in hand

and the land involved in State of Maharashtra

v. Ramchandra Damodar Koli

7

are virtually

identical situated in the same area bearing

similar topographical and physical

characteristics covered by the same

Notification dated 3-2-1970, when the nearby

land of the land under reference fetched

market value @ Rs 25 per square metre. On the

date of notification, certainly the land under

reference will fetch the same market value.”

6

1993 BCJ 27

7

(1997) 2 Mah. LR 325

19

19

Page 20 C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006

17. Also paras 16 and 17 from Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf

Abdul Hamid Mulla (supra) are quoted hereunder:

“16. We have considered the respective

arguments and carefully perused the record.

It is settled law that while fixing the

market value of the acquired land, the Land

Acquisition Collector is required to keep in

mind the following factors:

(i) Existing geographical situation of

the land.

(ii) Existing use of the land.

(iii) Already available advantages, like

proximity to National or State Highway

or road and/or developed area.

(iv) Market value of other land situated

in the same locality/village/area or

adjacent or very near the acquired land.

17. In Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State

of Gujarat

8

this Court laid down the following

principles for determination of market value

of the acquired land: (SCC pp. 796-97)

“17. Section 23 of the Act specifies

the matters required to be considered in

determining the compensation; the

principal among which is the

determination of the market value of the

land on the date of the publication of

the notification under sub-section (1) of

Section 4.

18. One of the principles for

determination of the amount of

compensation for acquisition of land

8

(2005) 4 SCC 789

20

20

Page 21 C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006

would be the willingness of an informed

buyer to offer the price therefor. It is

beyond any cavil that the price of the

land which a willing and informed buyer

would offer would be different in the

cases where the owner is in possession

and enjoyment of the property and in the

cases where he is not.

19. Market value is ordinarily the

price the property may fetch in the open

market if sold by a willing seller

unaffected by the special needs of a

particular purchase. Where definite

material is not forthcoming either in the

shape of sales of similar lands in the

neighbourhood at or about the date of

notification under Section 4(1) or

otherwise, other sale instances as well

as other evidences have to be

considered.”

18.Further, it would be worthwhile to refer to the

portion which is extracted from Atma Singh Vs. State

of Haryana

9

which para is referred to at para 18 in

Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla ’s case (supra)

which reads thus:

“5. For ascertaining the market value of the

land, the potentiality of the acquired land

should also be taken into consideration.

Potentiality means capacity or possibility

for changing or developing into state of

actuality. It is well settled that market

value of a property has to be determined

9

(2008) 2 SCC 568

21

21

Page 22 C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006

having due regard to its existing condition

with all its existing advantages and its

potential possibility when led out in its

most advantageous manner. The question

whether a land has potential value or not, is

primarily one of fact depending upon its

condition, situation, uses to which it is put

or is reasonably capable of being put and

proximity to residential, commercial or

industrial areas or institutions. The

existing amenities like water, electricity,

possibility of their further extension,

whether nearabout town is developing or has

prospect of development have to be taken into

consideration.”

19.In para 22 of Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid

Mulla’s case (supra), the judgment of this Court in

Land Acquisition Officer Vs. L. Kamalamma

10

is referred

to and the relevant portion of which is extracted

hereunder:

“7. … When a land is acquired which has the

potentiality of being developed into an urban

land, merely because some portion of it abuts

the main road, higher rate of compensation

should be paid while in respect of the lands

on the interior side it should be at lower

rate may not stand to reason because when

sites are formed those abutting the main road

may have its advantages as well as

disadvantages. Many a discerning customer may

prefer to stay in the interior and far away

10

(1998) 2 SCC 385

22

22

Page 23 C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006

from the main road and may be willing to pay a

reasonably higher price for that site. One

cannot rely on the mere possibility so as to

indulge in a meticulous exercise of

classification of the land as was done by the

Land Acquisition Officer when the entire land

was acquired in one block and therefore

classification of the same into different

categories does not stand to reason.”

20. Para 18 of this Court's judgment in the case of

Faridabad Gas Power Project, NTPC Ltd.,etc Vs. Om

Prakash & Ors., etc

11

, is extracted thus:

“18. On the facts and circumstances of the

matters before us and difference in quality

and potentiality of the lands acquired, we are

of the view that market value of the acquired

lands for NTPC when compared to the lands

acquired for Sector-II Faridabad, should be

reduced by at least one-fifth (20%).”

21. It would be worthwhile to refer to the judgment of

Privy Council decided on 23.02.1939 in the decision

reported in Vyricherla Narayana Gajapatiraju Vs.

Revenue Divisional Officer

12

wherein at para 24 it

reads as under:

“24. It was then claimed on the

appellant’s behalf that the spring could but

11

(2009) 4 SCC 719

12

AIR 1939 PC 98

23

23

Page 24 C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006

for its acquisition, have been used by him as

a source of water supply either to the Harbour

Authority or to the oil companies and others

residing or carrying on business in the

harbour area; and the appellant claimed to be

compensated upon this footing. After a

lengthy hearing before him in the course of

which many questions of law and fact not now

in issue were discussed, the learned Judge

made his award. He found as a fact, and the

fact cannot be disputed, that the water of the

spring was on 13

th

February, 1928 capable of

being used as a source of water supply to

persons outside the plaintiff’s land. He also

found that the only possible buyers of the

water at that date were the Harbour authority

itself and the oil companies and labour camps

that might be established as a result of the

development of the Harbour and stated that

this fact would be taken into consideration in

fixing the amount of compensation. But after

considering the authorities on the subject, he

came to the conclusion as a matter of law that

the value to a vendor of a potentiality of his

land can be assessed even though there are no

other possible purchasers beyond the acquiring

authority. Other principles of law stated by

him for his guidance in making his award were

that it was the contingent possibility of the

user that had to be taken as the basis of

valuation and not the realized possibility and

that the use to which the acquiring authority

had actually put the property could be taken

as a strong piece of evidence to show that the

property acquired could be put to such use by

the owner at the date of acquisition. ”

(Emphasis supplied)

24

24

Page 25 C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006

22. The judgment of Bombay High Court extracted in

Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla’s case (supra),

and the principles laid down by this Court would

clearly go to show that the relevant consideration for

determination of market value of the acquired land is

virtually identical. The nearby land of the land under

reference fetched market value of Rs.25/- per sq.

metre. In the judgment referred to supra it is held

that judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the

industrial growth in and around Bombay has started with

rapid strides from the year 1965 onwards. In fact, the

growth is by leaps and bounds in magnitude as well as

number of industries and virtually all the industries

of the country are represented on the industrial

estates scattered on this highway.

23.The sale instances in relation to the small

residential plots covered in the sale deeds Exhs. 20-

21 are situated in the same area, which sales were

prior to the issuance of the preliminary notification

25

25

Page 26 C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006

i.e. before 14.06.1990 and it has similar

topographical and physical characteristics and the

fact is that the land of the appellants is acquired

for the purpose of industrial development, which has

got the potentiality for development of the land as

industrial estate and to carve out industrial plots in

it. That the acquisition of the land is for commercial

purpose should be the relevant criteria for

determining the market value by both the Land

Acquisition Officer and reference Court placing

reliance upon the sale instances even in relation to

small plots of land, though it is shown from the

records that the acquired land on the date of

notification is an agricultural land. But the acquired

land has got non agricultural potentiality as the said

land was proposed by the District Collector after

identifying the land for acquisition and stated that

it is suitable for the purpose of industrial

development. Therefore, the principles laid down at

para 16 of Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla's

26

26

Page 27 C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006

case and the principles laid down in Viluben Jhalejar

Contractor’s case referred to supra laid down the

criteria for determination of the market value of the

acquired land. Also, in Atma Singh’s case (supra) it

was stated that the criteria for the determination of

the market value the potentiality of the acquired land

should also be taken into consideration which has been

explained stating that potentiality means capacity or

possibility for changing or developing into a state of

actuality. Further, the legal principles laid down in

the case of Atma Singh (supra)at para 5 which portion

is extracted above, gives us the criteria to be

followed for determination of the market value of a

property keeping in view its existing condition with

all its existing advantages and its potential

possibility when let out in its most advantageous

manner. The various criteria laid down in the above

referred case namely, the existing amenities like

water, electricity, possibility of their further

extension, whether near about the acquired land, town

27

27

Page 28 C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006

is developing or has prospect of development in

future, have to be taken into consideration by both

the Land Acquisition Collector and the courts for

determination of the market value. The aforesaid

advantages are very much abundantly available in

respect of the acquired land as the said land is

within the proximity of New Venkateshnagar Layout,

wherein residential sites are formed, and it is on

record and there is a school and college near the

Highway. Therefore, the principles laid down in the

aforesaid case are aptly applicable to the fact

situation of the case in hand. Hence, we have to apply

the aforesaid principles laid down in the cases of

Atma Singh & Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla

(supra) to the case on hand.

24. In view of the foregoing reasons, we are of the

view that the findings of fact and reasons recorded by

the learned Judge of the reference court in determining

28

28

Page 29 C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006

the market value of the acquired land are well founded

and the same are based on facts, cogent and legal

evidence adduced on record by the appellants. The same

has been rightly accepted by the learned reference

Judge after having noticed that the Land Acquisition

Officer in a casual manner rejected the claim of the

appellants and determined the meager sum of Rs.

50,000/- per hectare as the market value of the land

which is unrealistic and contrary to the legal evidence

on record and the law laid down by this Court in the

cases referred to supra. The findings of fact recorded

by the reference Judge on the relevant issue has been

erroneously set aside by the High Court without

assigning valid reasons. The findings and reasons

recorded by the High Court in its judgment are contrary

to the facts and legal evidence and various legal

principles laid down by this court in the cases

referred to supra. Therefore, we have to record our

finding that reversing the judgment and award of the

reference court is not only erroneous on facts but is

29

29

Page 30 C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006

also erroneous in law. Accordingly, we answer the first

point in favour of the appellants.

25. Since, we have answered the first point in favour

of the appellants, the second point is also answered

in favour of the appellants and it would be just and

proper for this Court to restore the judgment and award

passed by the reference court. Since we have affirmed

the award of the reference court, having regard to the

undisputed fact that this acquisition is of more than

23 years, it would be just and proper for this Court to

direct the respondent No.3 – M.I.D.C. to issue the

Demand Draft in favour of the landowners/appellants or

their legal representatives or deposit the same in

their bank accounts within six weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment and submit the

compliance report before the reference court.

26. The appeal is allowed accordingly. There shall be

no order as to cost.

30

30

Page 31 C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006

………………………………………………………… J

[G.S. SINGHVI]

…………………………………………………………J.

[V. GOPALA GOWDA]

New Delhi,

August 1, 2013

31

31