Supreme Court of India
RAMRAO SHANKAR TAPASEversusMAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN. AND OTHERS
- Citation
- 2022 INSC 437
- Decided
- 19 April 2022
- Disposal
- Case Partly allowed
- Bench
- M R SHAH
Holding
The Supreme Court modified the High Court's compensation awards by applying a 12% cumulative increase and adjusting values, while rejecting the claimants' arguments on future use and development charges, and denying interest for delay.
Summary
The State Government, under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961, acquired agricultural lands in village Bhoyar for the extension of a MIDC industrial estate. The Special Land Acquisition Officer fixed compensation, which was enhanced by the Reference Court. The High Court reduced the awards, relying on a 1992 sale deed from Bhoyar (Ex. 41) and discarding later or smaller sale exemplars from the neighbouring village Lohara. The claimants appealed, arguing that the land’s future industrial use and higher market values in Lohara should raise compensation. The Supreme Court held that only sale exemplars from the same village are relevant, that future use is not a basis for valuation, and that a 12% cumulative increase (instead of 10%) is appropriate, leading to revised compensation figures (e.g., Rs 1.75 lakh per hectare instead of Rs 1.5 lakh). It also noted that development charges should be deducted but were not, and denied interest for delayed appeals. The appeals were partly allowed, modifying the High Court’s awards accordingly.
Issues considered
- The relevance of the future/industrial use of land in determining compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
- Whether sale exemplars from other villages or from periods after the acquisition can be considered for valuation.
- The appropriate percentage for cumulative increase in market value (10% vs 12%).
- Whether development charges incurred by the acquiring body should be deducted from compensation.
- Whether lands within the same village can have different compensation rates based on location and quality.
- Whether interest is payable for delay in filing appeals.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 18, s. 23, s. 34
- Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961s. 1(3) r/w 31, s. 32(2)
Subjects
land acquisitioncompensationfair market valuecumulative increasedevelopment chargesindustrial purposesale exemplarsMaharashtra Industrial Development ActSupreme Court
Judgment
[2022] 19 S.C.R. 149 149
RAMRAO SHANKAR TAPASE A
v.
MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN.
AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2732 of 2022) B
April 19, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: s.23 – Land acquisition
proceedings undertaken by the State Government for the
C
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation for extension of
Industrial estate in Village Bhoyar – Special Land Acquisition officer
declared awards and determined the quantum of compensation
payable to the original claimants – Reference Court enhanced the
amount of compensation – Both original claimants as well as the
acquiring body preferred appeals against the award passed by the D
Reference court – High Court disposed of all the appeals and cross
objections by the impugned common judgment and order while partly
allowing the appeal preferred by the Acquiring body and reducing
the compensation amount awarded by the Reference Court – Held:
High Court rightly relied upon and considered the only sale exemplar
E
of the same village while determining compensation and discarded
sale exemplars with respect to another village Lohara which 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 –
However, impugned amount of compensation modified – Instead of
10% cumulative increase as adopted by the High Court, 12% F
cumulative increase would be just and proper and in the fitness of
things – So far as 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,
G
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, development charges not deducted – H
149
150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A Even otherwise, the future use of the acquired land cannot be the
main criteria to determine the compensation for the lands acquired.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Before the Reference Court and even the High
Court, the original claimants relied upon Ex. 41, 42, 43 and 44
B and other sale deeds/sale instances with respect to the land of
village Lohara. However, the sale deeds with respect to the lands
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 rightly
C discarded the same. [Para 7][163-A-B]
1.2 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
D village Lohara and also with respect to small pieces of land. 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. In
the facts and circumstances of the case, it would have been just
and proper and in the fitness of things, that instead of 10%
E cumulative increase as adopted by the High Court, if 12 %
cumulative increase would have been adopted. [Para 10][163-G-
H; 164-A-B]
1.3 The submission on behalf of the claimants was that the
lands in question were acquired for the industrial corporation
F and were to be used for the industries/commercial purpose and
accordingly the compensation should have been paid is concerned.
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
G 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. [Para 11][164-
C-D]
H
RAMRAO SHANKAR TAPASE v. MAHARASHTRA 151
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN.
1.4 Now, so far as the compensation determined differently A
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. [Para 13][164-G-H]
B
Pehlad Ram v. Haryana Urban Development Authority
(2014) 14 SCC 778; Hookiyar Singh v. Special Land
Acquisition Officer (1996) 3 SCC 766 : [1996] 3 SCR
422; Kanwar Singh v. Union of India (1998) 8 SCC
136 : [1998] 2 Suppl. SCR 505; Tarlochan Singh v.
State of Punjab (1995) 2 SCC 424 – relied on. C
Atma Singh v. State of Haryana (2008) 2 SCC 568 :
[2007] 12 SCR 1120; Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul
Hamid Mulla (D) By Lrs. v. Special Land Acquisition
Officer [2012] 7 SCC 595, Land Acquisition Officer
Revenue Divisional Officer v. L. Kamalamma (D) By D
Lrs. (1998) 2 SCC 385; Dollar Co. v. Collector of
Madras (1975) 2 SCC 730 : [1975] SCR 403;
Shakuntalabai v. State of Maharashtra (1996) 2 SCC
152 : [1995] 5 Suppl. SCR 618; T.S. Ramachandra
Shetty v. Chairman, Karnataka Housing Board (2009) E
14 SCC 334; Subh Ram v. State of Haryana (2010) 1
SCC 444 : [2009] 15 SCR 287; General Manager,
ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (2008) 14
SCC 745 : [2008] 11 SCR 927; Manoj Kumar v. State
of Haryana (2018) 13 SCC 96 : [2017] 8 SCR 997–
referred to. F
Case Law Reference
[2007] 12 SCR 1120 referred to Para 4
[1975] SCR 403 referred to Para 6.1
G
[1995] 5 Suppl. SCR 618 referred to Para 6.1
[1996] 3SCR 422 relied on Para 6.2
[2009] 15 SCR 287 referred to Para 6.2
H
152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A [1998] 2 Suppl. SCR 505 relied on Para 6.2
[2008] 11 SCR 927 referred to Para 6.3
[2017] 8 SCR 997 referred to Para 6.3
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2732
B of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.04.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in First Appeal No.
133 of 2007.
With
C
Civil Appeal Nos.2746-2647, 2745, 2744, 2733-2734, 2737-2738,
2740-2741, 2739, 2735-2736 and 2742-2743 of 2022.
Aaditya A. Pande, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Kush Chaturvedi, Ms.
Priyashree Sharma PH, Syed Faraz Alam, Hrishikesh Chitaley, Vijay
Kari Singh, Rajat Joseph, Satyajit A. Desai, Satya Kam Sharma,
D
Siddharth Gautam, Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Shakul R. Ghatole, Ms. Jaikriti
S. Jadeja, Ms. Prapti Allagh, Ashish Wad, Mrs. Tamali Wad, Sidharth
Mahajan, Ms. Sukriti Jaggi, Ayush P. Shah, M/s J. S. Wad And Co., K.
Krishna Kumar, Advs. for the Appellant.
Rahul Chitnis, Sachin Patil, Geo Joseph, Ms. Shwetal Shepal,
E Gagan Sanghi, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. As common questions of law and facts arise in this group of
F appeals from the same land acquisition proceedings, all these appeals
are decided and disposed of by this common judgment.
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
G ‘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
H
RAMRAO SHANKAR TAPASE v. MAHARASHTRA 153
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
spread out in the village of Bhoyar, belonging to the original claimants, A
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
B
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 C
High Court has disposed of all the appeals and cross 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.
D
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 E
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 F
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 G
Survey No. 20/2 in village Bhoyar itself and considering the potentiality
of the acquired land and considering the time 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 H
154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A 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-
B 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/
C - 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
D
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 High
E
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.
F
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
G 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.
H
RAMRAO SHANKAR TAPASE v. MAHARASHTRA 155
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
Civil Appeal Nos. 2733-2734/2022 @ SLP(Civil) A
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 B
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. 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. C
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 D
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 E
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- F
27141/2018
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 G
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
H
156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A 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.
B 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
C 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
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
D 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
E
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
F 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.
G 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
H cultivable land and Rs.1500/- per hectare for 0.10 hectares of uncultivable
RAMRAO SHANKAR TAPASE v. MAHARASHTRA 157
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
land. The Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation at A
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
B
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 C
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 D
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 Industrial Development Corporation, which E
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 F
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 G
soldas 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);
H
158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A 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:
B (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;
(b) That judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the
sale consideration mentioned in the sale deeds are
C 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
D
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
E
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
F 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);
G 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. 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)
H 2 SCC 385 (para 7).
RAMRAO SHANKAR TAPASE v. MAHARASHTRA 159
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
vii) that the land in question is having a non-agricultural A
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
B
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 C
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. D
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:
i) that the High Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment E
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 F
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 G
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 H
160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A 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
B
High Court has also considered that acquired agricultural
lands have non-agricultural potential and after ascertaining
the location of the respective lands 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;
C 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
D Reference Court in the present cases. It is urged that
ameticulous 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
E 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
F 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
G 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
is observed and held that the cumulative increase of 10 to
15% per year in the market value of the land may be
H accepted. It is submitted that if the cumulative increase per
RAMRAO SHANKAR TAPASE v. MAHARASHTRA 161
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
year is increased to 12% from 10%, compensation would A
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%.
B
6.1 Learned 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 C
land is best evidence for determining its fair market value.
6.2 Learned 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 D
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 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 E
same village may not possess the same quality and therefore cannot
command common market price.
6.3 Learned 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 F
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.
6.4 Making the above submissions and relying upon the aforesaid G
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 H
162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A 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
B at adjoining village Lohara.
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
C Development Act, 1961, initiating L.A. proceedings =
09.03.1995
D
E
F
G
H
RAMRAO SHANKAR TAPASE v. MAHARASHTRA 163
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
At the outset, it is required to be noted that before the Reference A
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 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
B
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. C
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/ D
- 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 E
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
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 F
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 G
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.
H
164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A 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
B
increase would have been adopted, it would have been just and proper
and in the fitness of things.
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
C 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
D 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
E
is not the relevant consideration.
12.1 In 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
F 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.
13. Now, so far as the compensation determined differently for
different lands acquired with respect to the same village Bhoyar, ranging
G 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.
H
RAMRAO SHANKAR TAPASE v. MAHARASHTRA 165
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
13.1 In the case of Basant Kumar (supra), it is observed and A
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.
B
13.2 In 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 C
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
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
D
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
E
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 F
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 G
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 appeals preferred by the claimants
are required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.
H
166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A 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.
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
RAMRAO SHANKAR TAPASE v. MAHARASHTRA 167
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
However, so far as Civil Appeal Nos. 2746-2747/2022 and Civil A
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. B
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no
order as to costs.
Devika Gujral and Amarendra Kumar Appeals partly allowed.
(Assisted by : Iram Jan, LCRA)
C
D
E
F
G
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