STATE OF ORISSAversusBRIJ LAL MISRA ETC. ETC.

A                            STATE OF ORISSA
                                    v.
                         BRIJ LAL MISRA ETC. ETC.

                                  JULY 26, 1995

B            [K. RAMASWAMY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.)

          Land Acquisition Act, 1894:Sections 4( 1), 23 & 24.

          Land Acquisition-Compensation-Detemiination of~ompensation
C awarded taking into account the existing potentiality of land-Further enhan-
    cement of compensation taking into account future potentiality of Land held
    not pennissible.

          While determining compensation for certain lands acquired the
    Reference Court took into account the existing potentialities of the land
D   and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 200 per decimal. It further
    enhanced compensation at 25% for future potentialities which was upheld
    by the High Court. In appeals to this Court on the question whether the
    Courts having determined the compensation by taking into account the
    existing potential value were right in further enhancing the compensation
    at 25% for future potentialities.
E
          Allowing the appeals in part, this Court

          HELD : 1. Having taken the existing potentialities into consideration
    and determined the compensation at Rs. 200 per decimal, the Reference
    Court as well as the High Court have committed obvious illegality in
F   applying wrong principle to award further increase at 25% more for future
    potentialities which is within the grinding teeth of the prohibition
    engrafted in Section 24, fifthly and sixthly, on the Land Acquisition Act,
    1894. [358-C-D]

          V.N. Gajapatiraju v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizagaapatnam, AIR
G
    (1939) P.C. 98; P. Rama Reddy & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer, [1995)
    2 SCC 305; Land Acquisition Officer, Eluru and Ors. v. Jasti Rohini and
    Another, [1995] 1 SCC 717, referred to.

         Musamat Kunduna Bibi@Khatun Bibi v. State of Orissa, [1968] 34
H   Orissa Law Times 1043; State of Orissa through the Land Acquisition
                                   354
                     STATE OF ORISSA v: B.L. MISRA                        355

Collect01; Sundergarh v. Budha Oram & Ors. Etc., (1977) 2 Orissa Weekly          A
Reporter, disapproved.

       2. Section 23(1) of the Act charges determination of the amount of
compensation for the acquired land taking into account firstly the market
value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under
s.4(1) of the Act. The market value prevailing on the date of the notification   B
including potentiality the land possessed of as on the date of the notifica-
tion would be the relevant fact for consideration to determine market
value. The very concept of the potential value would mean existing in
possibility but not in act, i.e., the land is capable to be used in future in
the existing condition. Section 24, fifthly, of the Act expressly prohibits      C
taking into account such future use declaring such matters to be neglected
in determining compensation. The Court shall not take into consideration
any increase to the value of the land acquired likely to accrue from the use
to which it will be put when acquired; sixthly, any increase to the value of
the other land of the person interested likely to accrue from the use to
which the land acquired will be put. [356-E; G-H, 357-A-B]                       D
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 704-706
of 1980.

      From the Judgment and Order dated 1.8.78 of the Orissa High Court
in F.A.No. 113, 114 and 115 of 1970.                                             E

      R.K. Mehta for the Appellant.

      B.D. Sharma for the Respondent.

      The following Order of the Court was delivered:                            F

      These three appeals are disposed of by a common judgment since
the questions of law raised are common.

      A notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act(for short,
'the Act') was published in 1968 acquiring 0.62 acre, 0.82 acre and 0.15 G
acre in Survey Nos. 704, 705 and 706/80 respectively for construction of
over-bridge, near Vedavyas in Rajganjpur - Rourkela Road. The Land
Acquisition Officer determined the compensation under s.11 of the Act
between Rs. 1360 per acre to Rs. 2912 per acre. On reference, the Subor-
dinate Judge, by award and decree dated January 19, 1970, while deter- H
    . 356                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A    mining the compensation at the rate of Rs. 200 per decimal, on the basis
     of comparable sales which ranged between Rs. 100 to Rs. 115 per decimal,
     further enhanced 25% of the compensation for future potential value which
     was upheld by the High Court by its impugned judgment dated August 16,
     1978. The only question, rightly canvassed by Shri Mehta, learned counsel
     for the appellant is whether the courts having determined the compensa-
B
     tion take the potential value, whether would be right to further enhance
     compensation at 25% more for future potentiality. The Higli Court placed
     reliance on two judgments of that court reported in Musamat Kunduna
     Bibi@Khatun Bibi v. State of Olissa, [1968] 34 Orissa Law Times 1043 and
     in State of Olissa through the Land Acquisition Collect01; Sundergarh v.
c    Budha Oram & Ors. Etc., (1977) 2 Orissa Weekly Reporter and held thus:·

              "There is immense possibility of commercial development and
              industrialisation in the locality in the immediate future and, there-
              fore, the direction that potential value be estimated at twenty five
              per cent for purposes of compensation is justified and does not
D
              call for interference."

            Section 23(1) of the Act charges determination of the amount of
     compensation for the acquired land taking into account firstly the market
     value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under
E    s.4(1) of the Act. The question, therefore, would be that what would be
     the market value of the land. The market value prevailing on the date of
     the notification including potentiality the land possessed of or realisable
     potentiality existing as on the date of the notification, would be the relevant
     fact for consideration to determine market value. This question was settled
F    by the Privy Council in V.N. Gajapatiraju v. Revenue Divisional Officer,
     Vizagaapatnam, AIR (1939) P.C. 98. The Privy Council held that in
     determining market value under s.23, the Court would be guided by ascer-
     taining in a best way from the material on record from willing vendors. It
     is possibility of the market value of the land and not realised possibility
     that must be taken into consideration. That judgment is followed in a
G    catena of decisions of this court and held that in determining the compen-
     sation the Court would take into consideration the potentialities of the land
     existing as on. the date of the notification published under s.4(1). The very
     concept of the potential value would mean existing in possibility but not in
     act, i.e., the land is capable to be ·used in future in the existing condition.
H     Having taken that factor into consideration and determined compensation
                   STATE OF ORISSA v. B.L. MISRA                      357

whether the court would be justified in further enhancing at 25% for A
further potentiality? Our answer is positively no. Section 24, fifthly, of the
Act expressly prohibits taking into account such future use declaring such
matters to be neglected in determining compensation. The Court shall not
take into consideration any increase to the value of the land acquired likely
to accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired; sixthly, any B
increase to the value of the other land of the person interested likely to
accrue from the use to which the land acquired will be put. In other words,
the statute expressly enjoins to omit consideration of the future use of the
land or potentialities of the neighbouring lands on account of the acquisi-
tion in determining compensation. In a recent judgment in P. Rama Reddy
& Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer, [1995] 2 SCC 305 at 314, this court C
considering this aspect of the matter held thus :

        "...when a land with building potentiality is acquired, the price
        which its willing seller could reasonably expect to obtain from its
        willing purchaser with reference to the date envisaged under s.4(1) D
        of the L.A. Act, ought to necessarily include that portion of the
        price of the land attributable to its building potentiality. Such price
        of the acquired land then becomes its market value envisaged
        under s.23(1) of the L.A. Act. If that be the market value of the
        acquired land with building potentiality, which acquired land could
        be regarded to have a building potentiality and how the market E
        value of such acquired land with such building potentiality requires
        to be measured or determined are matters which remain for our
        consideration now."

     In Land Acquisition Officer, Elum and Ors. v. Jasti Rohini (Smt.) and   F
Another, [1995] 1 SCC 717 at page 722 this Court held that :

        "Section 24 of the Act puts an embargo on the court that it shall
        not take into consideration the degree of urgency for the acquisi-
        tion; disinclination of the person interested to part with possession G
        of the acquired land; any increase in the value of the land acquired
        likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired;
        any increase to the value of the other land of the person interested
        likely to accrue from the use to which the land acquired will be
        put to; any layout or improvements on or disposal of the land
        acquired etc. without the sanction of the Collector or after Section H
    358                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A            4(1) notification was published, special suitability or adaptability
             of the land for any purpose or any increase in the value of the land
             on account of its being put to any use which is forbidden of law
             are opposed to public policy. Therefore, in determining the market
             value and fixation of th~ compensation, the court should be alive
             to these factors and keep them at the back of the iµind and should
B            not be influenced by the future or later development in the locality
             or neighbourhood and should not get influenced by the prevailing
             situation as on the date of the determination of the compensation.
             Its consideration should alone be confined to the market value
             prevailing as on the date of the notification under Section 4(1)."
c
            Thus, having taken the existing potentialities into consideration and
    determined the compensation at Rs. 200 per decimal, the Reference Court
    as well as the High Court have committed obvious illegality in applying
    wrong principle to award further increase at 25% more for future poten-
    tialities which is within the grinding teeth of the prohibition engrafted in
D   s.24, fifthly and sixthly, oHhe Act. The two decisions relied on by the High
    Court of that court had not correctly laid the law. While confirming the
    determination of the market value of Rs. 100 per decimal, which is not
    challenged before us, further increase of 25% is set aside. The claimants
    are entitled to the statutory benefits according to law. Appeals are accord-
E   ingly allowed in part. No costs.

    T.N.A.                                                     Appeals allowed.