REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2732 OF 2022

Ramrao Shankar Tapase …Appellant

Versus

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corpn. & Others...Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2746-2747 OF 2022

(Arising from SLP(Civil) Nos.6309-6310/2022 @ Diary No.8900/2021)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2745 OF 2022

(Arising from SLP(Civil) No. 6308/2022 @ Diary No.36320/2019)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2744 OF 2022

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2733-2734 OF 2022

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2737-2738 OF 2022

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2740-2741 OF 2022

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2739 OF 2022

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2735-2736 OF 2022

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2742-2743 OF 2022

J U D G M E N T

M.R. SHAH, J.

1.As common questions of law and facts arise in this group of

appeals from the same land acquisition proceedings, all these appeals

are decided and disposed of by this common judgment.

1

2.All these appeals arise from the land acquisition proceedings

undertaken by the State Government for the Maharashtra Industrial

Development Corporation (MIDC) (hereinafter referred to as the

‘Acquiring Body’), for extension of industrial estate in village Bhoyar,

Taluka and District Yavatmal. The State Government issued a

notification on 09.03.1995 under Section 32(2) of the Maharashtra

Industrial Development Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) for

acquisition of the lands in question pertaining to village Bhoyar. By the

said notification, several extents of land located in various survey

numbers spread out in the village of Bhoyar, belonging to the original

claimants, were acquired. The Special Land Acquisition Officer declared

the awards and determined the quantum of compensation payable to the

original claimants, particulars of which are given hereinbelow. The

original claimants preferred reference applications under Section 34 of

the Act, read with Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the

Reference Court seeking enhancement of compensation. The

Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation. Against the

common judgment and award passed by the Reference Court both, the

original claimants as well as the acquiring body preferred appeals before

the High Court. The original claimants preferred the appeals for

enhancement of compensation. By the impugned common judgment

and order, the High Court has disposed of all the appeals and cross

2

objections and has partly allowed the appeals preferred by the acquiring

body and has reduced the amount of compensation determined and

awarded by the Reference Court as under. Hence, the original claimants

have preferred the present appeals.

3.The factual aspects in case of each claimant and the appeal/s are

as under:

Civil Appeal No. 2732/2022 @ SLP (C) No. 23250/2018

The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and order

passed by the High Court in First Appeal No. 133/2007. Land

admeasuring 4.91 Hectares in Survey No. 31/2 in village Bhoyar came to

be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer declared the award dated

27.11.1997 and determined the compensation at Rs.50,000/- per

Hectare for 4.23 Hectares of cultivable land and Rs.1,500/- per Hectare

for 0.68 hectare of uncultivable land. Rs.24,400/- was awarded for the

well. At the instance of the claimants, a reference was made to the

Reference Court, which was numbered as L.A.C. No. 213/1999. The

Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 3,75,000/- per

hectare. The acquiring body – MIDC preferred the appeal before the

High Court, being First Appeal No. 133/2007. Relying upon and

considering the sale deed produced at Ex. 41 dated 18.09.1992 with

respect to the land bearing Survey No. 20/2 in village Bhoyar itself and

considering the potentiality of the acquired land and considering the time

3

gap between the said notification dated 18.09.1992 and the present

notification dated 9.3.1995 and considering the time gap of

approximately three years, adding 10% towards the price rise/escalation

and adding further 15% towards the potentiality and the location of the

acquired land, the High Court, by the impugned judgment and order, has

determined the compensation at Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare. Hence, the

original claimant has preferred the present appeal.

Civil Appeal Nos. 2746-2747/2022 @ SLP(C) Nos.6309-6310/2022 @

D.No. 8900/2021

Land admeasuring 2.43 Hectares in Survey No. 33/2 in village

Bhoyar came to be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer declared the

award and determined the compensation at Rs.1,500/- per hectare. The

Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.4,00,000/-

per hectare. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has

determined the compensation to Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare. Hence, the

original claimants have preferred the present appeals.

Civil Appeal No. 2745/2022 @ SLP(C) No. 6308/2022 @

D.No.36320/2019

Land admeasuring 1.62 hectares in Survey No. 32/1 in village

Bhoyar came to be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer determined

and awarded compensation at Rs. 1500/- per hectare. The Reference

Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.3,75,000/- per

hectare, relying upon the sale deed of the adjacent village Lohara. The

4

High Court, by the impugned judgment and order, has reduced the

amount of compensation and determined and awarded the

compensation at Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare, relying upon the sale deed at

Ex. 41 dated 18.09.1992 with respect to the land situated in village

Bhoyar and the claimant has preferred the present appeal.

Civil Appeal No. 2744/2022 @ SLP(Civil) No. 1793/2019

Land admeasuring 4.47 hectares in Survey No. 33/4 in village

Bhoyar came to be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer declared the

award and determined the compensation at Rs. 1500/- per hectare. The

Reference Court determined and awarded the compensation at Rs.17/-

per sq. ft., relying upon the sale deed produced at Ex. 31 dated

28.11.1994 of village Lohara. By the impugned judgment and order, the

High Court in First Appeal No. 56/2006 filed by the acquiring body has

determined and awarded the amount of compensation at Rs.2,00,000/-

per hectare. Hence, the claimant has preferred the present appeal.

Civil Appeal Nos. 2733-2734/2022 @ SLP(Civil) Nos.24890-

24891/2018

Land admeasuring 7.75 hectares in Survey No. 17 in village

Bhoyar came to be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer determined

and awarded compensation at Rs. 45,000/- per hectare for 7.24 hectares

of cultivable land and Rs. 1500/- per hectare for 0.51 hectare of

uncultivable land. The Reference Court enhanced the amount of

5

compensation to Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare for cultivable land and

Rs.90,000/- per hectare for uncultivable land. By the impugned

judgment and order, the High Court has determined and awarded the

compensation at Rs.1,50,000/- for cultivable land and Rs.75,000/- for

uncultivable land. Hence, the original claimants have preferred the

present appeals.

Civil Appeal Nos.2737-2738 of 2022 @ SLP(Civil) Nos.26245-

26246/2018

Land admeasuring 4.05 hectares in Survey No. 4/3 in village

Bhoyar came to be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer determined

and awarded the compensation at Rs.55,000/- per hectare for cultivable

land of 3.75 hectares and Rs.1500/- per hectare for 0.30 hectare of

uncultivable land. The reference Court enhanced the compensation to

Rs. 2,40,000/- per hectare for the entire land. Both, the land owners as

well as the acquiring body preferred the first appeals before the High

Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has partly

allowed the appeal preferred by the acquiring body and consequently

dismissed the appeal preferred by the land owners determining the

awarding of compensation at Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare. Hence, the

original claimants have preferred the present appeals.

Civil Appeal Nos.2740-2741/2022 @ SLP(Civil) Nos.27140-

27141/2018

6

Land admeasuring 3.40 hectares in Survey No. 2/1 in village

Bhoyar came to be acquired by the same notification. The Land

Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 62,529/- per hectare for 2.75 hectares of

cultivable land and Rs.1500/- per hectare for 0.65 hectare of uncultivable

land. The Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation to

Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare for cultivable land and Rs.1,00,000/- per

hectare for uncultivable land. Both, the land owners as well as the

acquiring body preferred appeals before the High Court. By the

impugned common judgment and order, the High Court has partly

allowed the appeal preferred by the acquiring body and consequently

dismissed the appeal preferred by the land owners determining and

awarding the compensation at Rs. 1,80,000/- per hectare for cultivable

land and Rs.90,000/- per hectare for uncultivable land. Hence, the

original claimants have preferred the present appeals.

Civil Appeal No. 2739/2022 @ SLP(Civil) No. 26249/2018

Land admeasuring 8.46 hectares in Survey No. 10/3 in village

Bhoyar came to be acquired by the same notification. The Land

Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs. 45,000/- per hectare for

7.29 hectares of cultivable land and Rs.1500/- per hectare for 1.17

hectares of uncultivable land. The Reference Court enhanced the

amount of compensation to Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare for cultivable land

and Rs.90,000/- per hectare for uncultivable land. The original claimants

7

preferred appeal before the High Court for enhancement of

compensation. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has

dismissed the said appeal and has maintained the amount of

compensation at Rs. 1,80,000/- per hectare for cultivable land and Rs.

90,000/- per hectare for uncultivable land, as awarded by the Reference

Court. Hence, the present appeal by the land owners.

Civil Appeal Nos. 2735-2736/2022 @ SLP(C) Nos.24909-24910/2018

Land admeasuring 2.20 hectares in Survey No. 2/2 in village

Bhoyar came to be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded the

compensation at Rs. 1500/- per hectare. The Reference Court enhanced

the amount of compensation at Rs. 2,40,000/- per hectare. Both, the

original claimants as well as the acquiring body preferred appeals before

the High Court. By the impugned common judgment and order, the High

Court has partly allowed the appeal preferred by the acquiring body and

has dismissed the appeal preferred by the original claimants determining

and awarding compensation at Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare. Hence, the

present appeals by the original claimants.

Civil Appeal Nos.2742-2743/2022 @ SLP(C) Nos.27888-27889/2018

Land admeasuring 2.02 hectares in Survey No. 17 in village

Bhoyar came to be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer determined

and awarded compensation at Rs. 45,000/- per hectare for 1.92 hectares

of cultivable land and Rs.1500/- per hectare for 0.10 hectares of

8

uncultivable land. The Reference Court enhanced the amount of

compensation at Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare for cultivable land and

Rs.90,000/- per hectare for uncultivable land. Both, the acquiring body

and the original claimants preferred appeals before the High Court. By

the impugned common judgment and order, the High Court has partly

allowed the appeal preferred by the acquiring body and consequently

has dismissed the appeal preferred by the original claimants by

determining and awarding the amount of compensation at Rs.1,50,000/-

per hectare for cultivable land and Rs.75,000/- per hectare for

uncultivable land. Hence, the present appeals at the instance of the

original claimants.

4.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective appellants –

original claimants have made the following submissions in support of

their case to enhance the amount of compensation:

i)that the present acquisition is under a Special Act, i.e., the

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Act, 1961, whose

object and purpose is to establish an Industrial Development

Corporation. It is therefore submitted that the land acquired is to be

used for commercial purpose;

ii)that the contiguous land of three adjoining villages, vis-à-vis,

Bhoyar, Pangri and Lohara were acquired by a common notification

dated 9.3.1995 for extension of industrial area of Maharashtra

9

Industrial Development Corporation, which is a purely

commercial/industrial purpose. The aforesaid purpose of acquisition

goes to the root of the matter and should have been a guiding/deciding

factor in determining compensation under the beneficial legislation

such as Land Acquisition Act. It is submitted that the said

overwhelming factor has been completely overlooked by the High

Court;

iii)that the land in question is acquired for commercial/industrial

purpose bears sufficient testimony to its non-agricultural potentiality

and commercial value. It is submitted that the entire land in question

is going to be sold as commercial plots to the prospective industries at

a commercial rate, is a factor which is completely ignored by the High

Court. Reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court in the case

of Atma Singh v. State of Haryana, (2008) 2 SCC 568 (para 5);

iv)that the High Court has committed an error in merely relying upon

the sale deed at Ex. 41 in determining the market value. It is

submitted that the sale deed at Ex. 41 solely could not have been

relied upon by the High Court for the following reasons:

(a)That the sale deed at Ex. 41 is in respect of purely agricultural

land whereas the acquisition in the instant case is purely for

commercial/industrial purpose;

10

(b)That judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the sale

consideration mentioned in the sale deeds are always

undervalued to save the stamp duty and registration charges;

(c)That the sale deed at Ex. 41 is almost three years prior to the

present acquisition and does not reflect the commercial/industrial

market value of the land and is certainly not the sale

consideration for which a willing seller would part his property

which is a commercial/industrial value.

v)that the land owners of village Lohara were awarded compensation

at Rs. 3,75,000/- per hectare. As by way of common notification, the

contiguous land of three villages without any boundaries, i.e., Bhoyar,

Pangri and Lohara were acquired for a common purpose, i.e., for

extension of industrial area, the High Court has committed a grave

error in determining and awarding a meagre compensation to the

extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- per hectare. It is submitted that the approach

of the High Court in classifying the land into different categories is

clearly contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of

Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla (D) By Lrs. v. Special

Land Acquisition Officer, (2012) 7 SCC 595 (para 22);

vi)that the landowners in question whose land is acquired for

common purpose by common notification should be uniformly

compensated at the same rate and should not be discriminated.

11

Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Land

Acquisition Officer Revenue Divisional Officer v. L. Kamalamma (D) By

Lrs., (1998) 2 SCC 385 (para 7).

vii)that the land in question is having a non-agricultural potentiality

which can be judged considering the fact that it was at a distance of

6-7 kilometers from the district place of Yavatmal; it is adjacent to the

wall of the MIDC area; rate at the relevant point of time for non-

agricultural land was around Rs. 20-25/- per sq. ft.; and it is perennially

irrigated land.

viii)it is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the original claimants that in case of some of the claimants, the

lands were situated just adjacent to village Lohara. It is therefore

submitted that the original claimants shall be entitled to the

compensation for the land acquired at par with the landowners of

village Lohara and/or considering the sale deeds produced on record

with respect to the lands situated in village Lohara.

5.Making the above submissions and relying upon the aforesaid

decisions, it is prayed to allow the present appeals.

6.All these appeals are vehemently opposed by the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the MIDC as well as the State, by submitting as

under:

12

i)that the High Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment after

considering the facts of each case and considering the principles of

law laid down by this Court relating to computation of compensation for

land acquisition. It is submitted that the claimants have not

demonstrated any wrong application of a legal principle or overlooking

of some important point/evidence affecting valuation by the High Court;

ii)that the High Court has given cogent reasons for interfering with

the orders passed by the Reference Court granting exorbitant

compensation to the landowners/original claimants. It is submitted that

the High Court has noted the reasons given by the Reference Court

and thereafter has given cogent reasons for reducing the amount of

compensation in each case;

iii)that the High Court has rightly relied upon the sale deed at Ex. 41

dated 18.09.1992 by which one of the original claimants – Satish

Nimodiya had purchased the acquired agricultural land admeasuring

1.21 hectares in survey No. 20/2 in village Bhoyar at Rs. 1,21,000/-

per hectare and then gave cumulative increase of 10% to arrive at the

fair market value of the agricultural lands in 1995, which are the

subject matter of acquisition. It is submitted that the High Court has

also considered that acquired agricultural lands have non-agricultural

potential and after ascertaining the location of the respective lands

13

from the map of village Bhoyar, it has arrived at the fair market value of

the lands and their non-agricultural potential in each case;

iv)that the High Court has considered the settled legal principle

relating to computation of fair market value. It is submitted that the

landowners – original claimants had relied upon the sale exemplars of

small plots in village Lohara, where an industrial estate exists and the

orders passed by the Reference Court in the present cases. It is

urged that a meticulous exercise has been made by the High Court

and considering the same exemplar produced at Ex. 41, which was

with respect to very village of Bhoyar has discarded the other evidence

and has rightly determined the compensation by relying upon the sale

exemplar produced at Ex. 41;

v)that the acquired lands are agricultural lands. Considerable area

would be used for developmental infrastructure and this would require

huge developmental investment/expenses by MIDC. It is submitted

that deduction of development charges was required to be done, which

has not been done by the High Court;

vi)it is submitted that the High Court has granted a cumulative

increase of 10% increase per year after noting that the Reference

court had granted 50% cumulative increase per year, which was just

contrary to the decision of this Court in the case of Pehlad Ram v.

Haryana Urban Development Authority, (2014) 14 SCC 778 by which it

14

is observed and held that the cumulative increase of 10 to 15% per

year in the market value of the land may be accepted. It is submitted

that if the cumulative increase per year is increased to 12% from 10%,

compensation would have to be reduced considering development

charges of 33%, which has not been done in the present case. There

is also no evidence to show that there was increasing trend in the sale

price of agricultural land in village Bhoyar to justify the increase from

10 to 12%.

6.1Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the acquiring body as well

as the State have relied upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of

Dollar Co. v. Collector of Madras, (1975) 2 SCC 730; Shakuntalabai v.

State of Maharashtrsa, (1996) 2 SCC 152; T.S. Ramachandra Shetty v.

Chairman, Karnataka Housing Board, (2009) 14 SCC 334 , on the

principle that the sale price of the acquired land is best evidence for

determining its fair market value.

6.2Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the acquiring body as well

as the State have also relied upon the decisions of this Court in the

cases of Tarlochan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 424;

Hookiyar Singh v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (1996) 3 SCC 766;

and Subh Ram v. State of Haryana, (2010) 1 SCC 444, on the principle

that the purpose of acquisition/future use of acquired land cannot be

considered for determination of compensation, and the decision of this

15

Court in the case of Kanwar Singh v. Union of India, (1998) 8 SCC 136,

on the principle that the land in adjacent village or even the same village

may not possess the same quality and therefore cannot command

common market price.

6.3Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the acquiring body as well

as the State have also relied upon the decisions of this Court in the

cases of General Manager, ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel,

(2008) 14 SCC 745; Pehlad Ram (supra); and Manoj Kumar v. State of

Haryana, (2018) 13 SCC 96, on the cumulative increase which would

vary from 10 to 15% per year in the market value of the land.

6.4Making the above submissions and relying upon the aforesaid

decisions, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeals.

7.We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at

length.

The High Court by the impugned common judgment and order has

awarded different amounts of compensation for different lands situated at

different locations, but with respect to the same village Bhoyar, the

particulars of which are collated in the form of a chart as under:

Chart

1.Land acquired is in village Bhoyar, District Yavatmal, Maharashtra.

Acquired for extension of Industrial Estate at adjoining village

Lohara.

16

2.Notification u/s 1(3) r/w 31 of the Maharashtra Industrial

Development Act, 1961 = 30.11.1994

3.Notification u/s 32(2) of the Maharashtra Industrial Development

Act, 1961, initiating L.A. proceedings = 09.03.1995

Sr.

No

.

Owner Civil

Appeal

No.

Surve

y No.

Are

a

(H)

First

Appeal

No.

Compensati

on awarded

by the High

Court

1.Shaila Kailash

Chandra

Chaudhari &

ors

[Kailashchand

had

purchased the

acquired land

by sale deed

dated

01.04.1989 for

Rs. 55,000/-

2744/2233/44.4

7

56/2006Rs.

2,00,000/-

per hectare

2.Sindhubai

Prajapati

2745/2232/11.6

2

489/2017Rs.

2,00,000/-

per hectare

3.Leelabai

Langote (D)

through Lrs.

2746-

47/2022

33/22.4

3

124/07 &

591/2006

Rs.2,00,000/

- per hectare

4.Lalita

Suraswar &

Umashankar

Gautam

2740-

2741/202

2

2/1 3.4

0

1254/200

9 &

7/2013

Rs.1,80,000/

- per hectare

for cultivable

land

Rs. 90,000/-

per hectare

for

uncultivable

land

5.Dinesh Boara

& Another

2735-

2736/202

2

2/2 2.2

0

216/2011

&

276/2011

Rs.1,80,000/

- per hectare

6.Chandrashekh

ar Mor

2737-

2738/202

4/3 4.0

5

215/2011

&

Rs.1,80,000/

- per hectare

17

2 602/2012

7.Ramrao

Tapase

2732/202

2

31/24.9

1

133/2007Rs.1,50,000/

- per hectare

8.Jagannath

Zinge

2742-

2743/202

2

17 2.0

2

1234/200

9 &

430/2018

Rs.1,50,000/

- per hectare

for cultivable

land

Rs.75,000/-

per hectare

for

uncultivable

land

9.Madhao

Lagad (D) by

Lrs.

2733-

2734/202

2

17 9.5

0

1248/200

9 &

431/2018

Rs.1,50,000/

- per hectare

for cultivable

land

Rs.75,000/-

per hectare

for

uncultivable

land

10.Umashankar

Gautam

2739/202

2

10/38.4

6

1255/200

9

Appeal

dismissed

without

reducing

compensatio

n at

Rs.1,80,000/

- per hectare

for cultivable

land, Rs.

90,000/- for

uncultivable

land

At the outset, it is required to be noted that before the Reference

Court and even the High Court, the original claimants relied upon Ex. 41,

42, 43 and 44 and other sale deeds/sale instances with respect to the

land of village Lohara. However, the sale deeds with respect to the lands

18

of village Lohara were either of the period subsequent to the land

acquired in the present case and/or the same were with respect to small

areas of land. The High Court has discarded the same with which we

agree.

8.It is also required to be noted that in some of the cases, the

Reference Court, relying upon the sale deed at Ex. 31, added 50%

cumulative increase and awarded compensation, which has been

modified by the High Court by the impugned judgment and order raising

10% price rise/escalation.

9.The High Court by the impugned judgment and order has mainly

relied upon Ex. 41, the sale deed with respect to the land bearing Survey

No. 20/2 of the very village Bhoyar dated 18.09.1992, by which one of

the claimants – Satish Nimodiya purchased the said land at Rs. 91,736/p

per hectare. The High Court has rounded off the same to Rs.1,00,000/-

per hectare. Therefore, the High Court has considered the value of the

land in 1992 at Rs. 1,00,000/- per hectare. Considering three years gap

between the sale exemplar dated 18.09.1992 (Ex. 41) and the land

acquired in the present case, the High Court has added 10% increase

cumulatively for three years and has determined the fair market value of

the acquired land at Rs. 1,30,000/- per hectare. That thereafter,

considering the fact that the lands acquired have non-agricultural

potentiality and are situated nearer to the industrial area, the High Court

19

has further added 15% and has determined and awarded the

compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,00,000/- per hectare for cultivable land.

In some of the cases, the same is reduced to Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare

or reduced to Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare (Civil Appeal Nos. 2733-

2734/2022), by considering the location of the lands acquired.

10.Looking to the fact that the sale deed produced at Ex. 41 with

respect to the land bearing Survey No. 20/2 was with respect to the very

village Bhoyar which was the only sale exemplar of the same village and

other sale exemplars/sale deeds were with respect to another village

Lohara and also with respect to small pieces of land, we are of the

considered view that the High Court has rightly relied upon and

considered the sale exemplar at Ex. 41 while determining the

compensation in the present cases with respect to the lands of very

village Bhoyar.

However, at the same time, bearing in mind the decision of this

Court in the case of Pehlad Ram (supra), by which this Court has

observed and held that a cumulative increase of 10 to 15% per year in

the market value of the land may be accepted, in the facts and

circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that instead of 10%

cumulative increase as adopted by the High Court, if 12% cumulative

increase would have been adopted, it would have been just and proper

and in the fitness of things.

20

11.Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the claimants that the

lands in question were acquired for the industrial corporation and were to

be used for the industries/commercial purpose and accordingly the

compensation should have been paid is concerned, what is required to

be considered is that the lands in question were agricultural lands. Even

for the purpose of industrial use and/or industries, the corporation is

required to incur the expenditure towards its development and therefore

the development charges would have to be deducted while determining

the compensation. However, in the present case, the development

charges are not deducted. Even otherwise, the future use of the

acquired land cannot be the main criteria to determine the compensation

for the lands acquired.

12.In the case of Hookiyar Singh (supra), it is observed and held that

while determining the compensation, the future use of the land is not the

relevant consideration.

12.1In the case of Subh Ram (supra), it is observed and held that the

purpose of acquisition is also a relevant factor. However, the said

observation may not apply in all cases and all circumstances as the

general rule is that the landowner is being compensated for what he has

lost and not with reference to the purpose of acquisition. It is further

observed and held that the purpose of acquisition can never be a factor

to increase the market value of the acquired land.

21

13.Now, so far as the compensation determined differently for different

lands acquired with respect to the same village Bhoyar, ranging from Rs.

1,50,000/- per hectare to Rs. 2,00,000/- per hectare is concerned,

different market value/compensation can be determined for different

lands located differently in the same village or locality. In the case of

Tarlochan Singh (supra), it is observed and held that it is common

knowledge that all the lands in the same village may not possess the

same quality and command a common market price.

13.1In the case of Basant Kumar (supra), it is observed and held that

even in the same village, no two lands command same market value.

The lands abutting the main road or national highway would command a

higher market value and as the location of the land is interior, the market

value of such land would be lesser despite the quality of land being

similar to the land on the main road or highway.

13.2In the case of Kanwar Singh (supra), it is observed and held that

generally there would be difference in the potentiality of lands situated in

two different villages.

14.In the present case, as such, there is already a sale exemplar at

Ex. 41 with respect to very village Bhoyar which as observed

hereinabove can be said to be the best exemplar while determining the

compensation with respect to the lands acquired of the same village

Bhoyar. The High Court has rightly relied upon and considered the sale

22

deed at Ex. 41 being land survey no. 20/2 and determined the market

value at Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare in the year 1992 and has rightly

determined the compensation relying upon the sale exemplar produced

at Ex. 41.

However, at the same time, as observed hereinabove, instead of

10% cumulative increase, the High Court ought to have added 12%

increase cumulatively for about three years. To that extent, the

impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court is

required to be modified and the appeals preferred by the original

claimants are required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Thus,

the market value of the acquired land would be Rs. 1,40,492/- per

hectare and after rounding off, it will become Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare.

Further adding 50% towards the non-agricultural potentiality, the fair

market value for determining the compensation would be Rs. 2,25,000/-

per hectare in the cases where the High Court has determined and

awarded the compensation at Rs. 2,00,000/- per hectare. There shall be

corresponding reduction in the compensation with respect to other lands

as made by the High Court looking to the location of the lands. Thus,

wherever the High Court has determined the compensation at

Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare, it will come to Rs. 2,00,000/- per hectare and

wherever the High Court has determined the compensation at Rs.

1,50,000/- per hectare, it will come to Rs. 1,75,000/- per hectare. The

23

appeals preferred by the claimants are required to be partly allowed to

the aforesaid extent.

15.In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above,

all these appeals are partly allowed. The respective appellants – original

claimants are entitled to the compensation as under, with all statutory

benefits, which may be available to them under the Act.

Sr.

No.

Owner Civil

Appeal

No.

Survey

No.

Are

a

(H)

First Appeal

No.

Compensation

awarded by the

High Court

Compensatio

n awarded

by this Court

01Shaila Kailash

Chandra Chaudhari

& ors [Kailashchand

had purchased the

acquired land by

sale deed dated

01.04.1989 for Rs.

55,000/-

2744/2

2

33/4 4.4

7

56/2006 Rs. 2,00,000/-

per hectare

Rs.2,25,000/

- per hectare

02Sindhubai Prajapati2745/2

2

32/1 1.6

2

489/2017 Rs. 2,00,000/-

per hectare

Rs.2,25,000/

- per hectare

03Leelabai Langote

(D) through Lrs.

2746-

47/202

2

33/2 2.4

3

124/07 &

591/2006

Rs.2,00,000/-

per hectare

Rs.2,25,000/

- per hectare

04Lalita Suraswar &

Umashankar

Gautam

2740-

2741/2

022

2/1 3.4

0

1254/2009

& 7/2013

Rs.1,80,000/-

per hectare for

cultivable land

Rs. 90,000/- per

hectare for

uncultivable

land

Rs.2,00,000/

- per hectare

for cultivable

land

Rs.1,00,000/

- per hectare

for

uncultivable

land

05Dinesh Boara &

Another

2735-

2736/2

022

2/2 2.2

0

216/2011 &

276/2011

Rs.1,80,000/-

per hectare

Rs.2,00,000/

- per hectare

06Chandrashekhar

Mor

2737-

2738/2

022

4/3 4.0

5

215/2011 &

602/2012

Rs.1,80,000/-

per hectare

Rs.2,00,000/

- per hectare

07Ramrao Tapase 2732/2

022

31/2 4.9

1

133/2007 Rs.1,50,000/-

per hectare

Rs.1,75,000/

- per hectare

08Jagannath Zinge 2742-

2743/2

022

17 2.0

2

1234/2009

& 430/2018

Rs.1,50,000/-

per hectare for

cultivable land

Rs.75,000/- per

hectare for

uncultivable

land

Rs.1,75,000/

- per hectare

for cultivable

land

Rs.87,500/-

per hectare

for

uncultivable

land

09Madhao Lagad (D) 2733- 17 9.51248/2009Rs.1,50,000/- Rs.1,75,000/

24

by Lrs. 2734/2

022

0 & 431/2018per hectare for

cultivable land

Rs.75,000/- per

hectare for

uncultivable

land

- per hectare

for cultivable

land

Rs.87,500/-

per hectare

for

uncultivable

land

10Umashankar

Gautam

2739/2

022

10/3 8.4

6

1255/2009Appeal

dismissed

without reducing

compensation at

Rs.1,80,000/-

per hectare for

cultivable land,

Rs. 90,000/- for

uncultivable

land

Rs.2,00,000/

- per hectare

for cultivable

land

Rs.1,00,000/

- per hectare

for

uncultivable

land

However, so far as Civil Appeal Nos. 2746-2747/2022 and Civil

Appeal No. 2745/2022 are concerned, as there was a delay of 613 and

438 days respectively in preferring the appeals, it is directed that the

claimants shall not be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of

compensation for the aforesaid delayed period.

16.All these appeals stand partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no

order as to costs.

………………………………….J.

[M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….j.

APRIL 19, 2022. [B.V. NAGARATHNA]

25

26