RAMRAO SHANKAR TAPASE versus MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN. AND OTHERS on 19 April 2022

[2022] 19 S.C.R. 149

RAMRAO SHANKAR TAPASE

v.

MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN.AND OTHERS

(Civil Appeal Nos. 2732 of 2022)

April 19, 2022

[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894: s.23 – Land acquisitionproceedings undertaken by the State Government for theMaharashtra Industrial Development Corporation for extension ofIndustrial estate in Village Bhoyar – Special Land Acquisition officerdeclared awards and determined the quantum of compensationpayable to the original claimants – Reference Court enhanced theamount of compensation – Both original claimants as well as theacquiring body preferred appeals against the award passed by theReference court – High Court disposed of all the appeals and crossobjections by the impugned common judgment and order while partlyallowing the appeal preferred by the Acquiring body and reducingthe compensation amount awarded by the Reference Court – Held:High Court rightly relied upon and considered the only sale exemplarof the same village while determining compensation and discardedsale exemplars with respect to another village Lohara which wereeither of the period subsequent to the land acquired in the presentcase and/or the same were with respect to small areas of land –However, impugned amount of compensation modified – Instead of10% cumulative increase as adopted by the High Court, 12%cumulative increase would be just and proper and in the fitness ofthings – So far as submission on behalf of the claimants that thelands in question were acquired for the industrial corporation andwere to be used for the industries/commercial purpose andaccordingly the compensation should have been paid is concerned,what is required to be considered is that the lands in question wereagricultural lands – Even for the purpose of industrial use and/orindustries, the corporation is required to incur the expendituretowards its development and therefore the development chargeswould have to be deducted while determining the compensation –However, in the present case, development charges not deducted –

A

B

CD

EFG

H

AEven otherwise, the future use of the acquired land cannot be themain 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 HighCourt, the original claimants relied upon Ex. 41, 42, 43 and 44Band other sale deeds/sale instances with respect to the land ofvillage Lohara. However, the sale deeds with respect to the landsof village Lohara were either of the period subsequent to theland acquired in the present case and/or the same were withrespect to small areas of land. The High Court has rightlyCdiscarded the same. [Para 7][163-A-B]

1.2 The sale deed produced at Ex. 41 with respect to theland bearing Survey No. 20/2 was with respect to the very villageBhoyar which was the only sale exemplar of the same village andother sale exemplars/sale deeds were with respect to anotherDvillage Lohara and also with respect to small pieces of land. TheHigh Court has rightly relied upon and considered the saleexemplar at Ex. 41 while determining the compensation in thepresent cases with respect to the lands of very village Bhoyar. Inthe facts and circumstances of the case, it would have been justand proper and in the fitness of things, that instead of 10%Ecumulative 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 thelands in question were acquired for the industrial corporationFand were to be used for the industries/commercial purpose andaccordingly the compensation should have been paid is concerned.The lands in question were agricultural lands. Even for thepurpose of industrial use and/or industries, the corporation isrequired to incur the expenditure towards its development andGtherefore the development charges would have to be deductedwhile determining the compensation. However, in the presentcase, the development charges are not deducted. Even otherwise,the future use of the acquired land cannot be the main criteria todetermine the compensation for the lands acquired. [Para 11][164-C-D]H

RAMRAO SHANKAR TAPASE v. MAHARASHTRAINDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN.

A

1.4 Now, so far as the compensation determined differentlyfor different lands acquired with respect to the same village Bhoyar,ranging from Rs. 1,50,000/- per hectare to Rs. 2,00,000/- perhectare is concerned, different market value/compensation canbe determined for different lands located differently in the samevillage or locality. [Para 13][164-G-H]

B

Pehlad Ram v. Haryana Urban Development Authority(2014) 14 SCC 778; Hookiyar Singh v. Special LandAcquisition Officer (1996) 3 SCC 766 : [1996] 3 SCR422; Kanwar Singh v. Union of India (1998) 8 SCC136 : [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 AbdulHamid Mulla (D) By Lrs. v. Special Land AcquisitionOfficer [2012] 7 SCC 595, Land Acquisition OfficerRevenue Divisional Officer v. L. Kamalamma (D) ByLrs. (1998) 2 SCC 385; Dollar Co. v. Collector ofMadras (1975) 2 SCC 730 : [1975] SCR 403;Shakuntalabai v. State of Maharashtra (1996) 2 SCC152 : [1995] 5 Suppl. SCR 618; T.S. RamachandraShetty v. Chairman, Karnataka Housing Board (2009)14 SCC 334; Subh Ram v. State of Haryana (2010) 1SCC 444 : [2009] 15 SCR 287; General Manager,ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (2008) 14SCC 745 : [2008] 11 SCR 927; Manoj Kumar v. Stateof Haryana (2018) 13 SCC 96 : [2017] 8 SCR 997–referred to.

D

E

F

H

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2732Bof 2022.

From the Judgment and Order dated 24.04.2018 of the High Courtof Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in First Appeal No.133 of 2007.

WithC

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, VijayKari Singh, Rajat Joseph, Satyajit A. Desai, Satya Kam Sharma,DSiddharth Gautam, Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Shakul R. Ghatole, Ms. JaikritiS. Jadeja, Ms. Prapti Allagh, Ashish Wad, Mrs. Tamali Wad, SidharthMahajan, 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,EGagan 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 ofFappeals from the same land acquisition proceedings, all these appealsare decided and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. All these appeals arise from the land acquisition proceedingsundertaken by the State Government for the Maharashtra IndustrialDevelopment Corporation (MIDC) (hereinafter referred to as theG‘Acquiring Body’), for extension of industrial estate in village Bhoyar,Taluka and District Yavatmal. The State Government issued a notificationon 09.03.1995 under Section 32(2) of the Maharashtra IndustrialDevelopment Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) foracquisition of the lands in question pertaining to village Bhoyar. By thesaid notification, several extents of land located in various survey numbersH

spread out in the village of Bhoyar, belonging to the original claimants,were acquired. The Special Land Acquisition Officer declared the awardsand determined the quantum of compensation payable to the originalclaimants, particulars of which are given hereinbelow. The originalclaimants preferred reference applications under Section 34 of the Act,read with Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before theReference Court seeking enhancement of compensation. The ReferenceCourt enhanced the amount of compensation. Against the commonjudgment and award passed by the Reference Court both, the originalclaimants as well as the acquiring body preferred appeals before theHigh Court. The original claimants preferred the appeals for enhancementof compensation. By the impugned common judgment and order, theHigh Court has disposed of all the appeals and cross objections and haspartly allowed the appeals preferred by the acquiring body and has reducedthe amount of compensation determined and awarded by the ReferenceCourt as under. Hence, the original claimants have preferred the presentappeals.

3. The factual aspects in case of each claimant and the appeal/sare as under:

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

The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and orderpassed by the High Court in First Appeal No. 133/2007. Land admeasuring4.91 Hectares in Survey No. 31/2 in village Bhoyar came to be acquired.The Land Acquisition Officer declared the award dated 27.11.1997 anddetermined the compensation at Rs.50,000/- per Hectare for 4.23Hectares of cultivable land and Rs.1,500/- per Hectare for 0.68 hectareof uncultivable land. Rs.24,400/- was awarded for the well. At theinstance of the claimants, a reference was made to the Reference Court,which was numbered as L.A.C. No. 213/1999. The Reference Courtenhanced the compensation to Rs. 3,75,000/- per hectare. The acquiringbody – MIDC preferred the appeal before the High Court, being FirstAppeal No. 133/2007. Relying upon and considering the sale deedproduced at Ex. 41 dated 18.09.1992 with respect to the land bearingSurvey No. 20/2 in village Bhoyar itself and considering the potentialityof the acquired land and considering the time gap between the saidnotification dated 18.09.1992 and the present notification dated 9.3.1995and considering the time gap of approximately three years, adding 10%towards the price rise/escalation and adding further 15% towards the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Apotentiality and the location of the acquired land, the High Court, by theimpugned judgment and order, has determined the compensation atRs.1,50,000/- per hectare. Hence, the original claimant has preferredthe present appeal.

--Civil Appeal Nos. 27462747/2022 @ SLP(C) Nos.6309B6310/2022 @ D.No. 8900/2021

Land admeasuring 2.43 Hectares in Survey No. 33/2 in villageBhoyar came to be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer declared theaward and determined the compensation at Rs.1,500/- per hectare. TheReference Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.4,00,000/C- per hectare. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court hasdetermined the compensation to Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare. Hence, theoriginal 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 villageBhoyar came to be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer determinedand awarded compensation at Rs. 1500/- per hectare. The ReferenceCourt enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.3,75,000/- per hectare,relying upon the sale deed of the adjacent village Lohara. The HighECourt, by the impugned judgment and order, has reduced the amount ofcompensation and determined and awarded the compensation atRs.2,00,000/- per hectare, relying upon the sale deed at Ex. 41 dated18.09.1992 with respect to the land situated in village Bhoyar and theclaimant has preferred the present appeal.

F

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

F

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

Land admeasuring 4.47 hectares in Survey No. 33/4 in villageBhoyar came to be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer declared theaward and determined the compensation at Rs. 1500/- per hectare. TheGReference Court determined and awarded the compensation at Rs.17/-per sq. ft., relying upon the sale deed produced at Ex. 31 dated 28.11.1994of village Lohara. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Courtin First Appeal No. 56/2006 filed by the acquiring body has determinedand awarded the amount of compensation at Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare.Hence, the claimant has preferred the present appeal.

H

-Civil Appeal Nos. 27332734/2022 @ SLP(Civil)Nos.24890-24891/2018

Land admeasuring 7.75 hectares in Survey No. 17 in village Bhoyarcame to be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer determined andawarded compensation at Rs. 45,000/- per hectare for 7.24 hectares ofcultivable land and Rs. 1500/- per hectare for 0.51 hectare of uncultivableland. The Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation toRs.1,80,000/- per hectare for cultivable land and Rs.90,000/- per hectarefor uncultivable land. By the impugned judgment and order, the HighCourt has determined and awarded the compensation at Rs.1,50,000/-for cultivable land and Rs.75,000/- for uncultivable land. Hence, the originalclaimants have preferred the present appeals.

-Civil Appeal Nos.27372738 of 2022 @ SLP(Civil)Nos.26245-26246/2018

Land admeasuring 4.05 hectares in Survey No. 4/3 in villageBhoyar came to be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer determinedand awarded the compensation at Rs.55,000/- per hectare for cultivableland of 3.75 hectares and Rs.1500/- per hectare for 0.30 hectare ofuncultivable land. The reference Court enhanced the compensation toRs. 2,40,000/- per hectare for the entire land. Both, the land owners aswell as the acquiring body preferred the first appeals before the HighCourt. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has partlyallowed the appeal preferred by the acquiring body and consequentlydismissed the appeal preferred by the land owners determining theawarding of compensation at Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare. Hence, theoriginal claimants have preferred the present appeals.

--Civil Appeal Nos.27402741/2022 @ SLP(Civil) Nos.2714027141/2018

Land admeasuring 3.40 hectares in Survey No. 2/1 in villageBhoyar came to be acquired by the same notification. The LandAcquisition Officer awarded Rs. 62,529/- per hectare for 2.75 hectaresof cultivable land and Rs.1500/- per hectare for 0.65 hectare ofuncultivable land. The Reference Court enhanced the amount ofcompensation to Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare for cultivable land andRs.1,00,000/- per hectare for uncultivable land. Both, the land ownersas well as the acquiring body preferred appeals before the High Court.By the impugned common judgment and order, the High Court has partly A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

Aallowed the appeal preferred by the acquiring body and consequentlydismissed the appeal preferred by the land owners determining andawarding the compensation at Rs. 1,80,000/- per hectare for cultivableland and Rs.90,000/- per hectare for uncultivable land. Hence, the originalclaimants have preferred the present appeals.

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

Land admeasuring 8.46 hectares in Survey No. 10/3 in villageBhoyar came to be acquired by the same notification. The LandAcquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs. 45,000/- per hectarefor 7.29 hectares of cultivable land and Rs.1500/- per hectare for 1.17Chectares of uncultivable land. The Reference Court enhanced the amountof compensation to Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare for cultivable land andRs.90,000/- per hectare for uncultivable land. The original claimantspreferred appeal before the High Court for enhancement ofcompensation. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court hasdismissed the said appeal and has maintained the amount of compensationDat Rs. 1,80,000/- per hectare for cultivable land and Rs. 90,000/- perhectare for uncultivable land, as awarded by the Reference Court. Hence,the present appeal by the land owners.

--Civil Appeal Nos. 27352736/2022 @ SLP(C) Nos.2490924910/2018

E

Land admeasuring 2.20 hectares in Survey No. 2/2 in villageBhoyar came to be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer awardedthe compensation at Rs. 1500/- per hectare. The Reference Courtenhanced the amount of compensation at Rs. 2,40,000/- per hectare.Both, the original claimants as well as the acquiring body preferred appealsFbefore the High Court. By the impugned common judgment and order,the High Court has partly allowed the appeal preferred by the acquiringbody and has dismissed the appeal preferred by the original claimantsdetermining and awarding compensation at Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare.Hence, the present appeals by the original claimants.

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

Land admeasuring 2.02 hectares in Survey No. 17 in village Bhoyarcame to be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer determined andawarded compensation at Rs. 45,000/- per hectare for 1.92 hectares ofHcultivable land and Rs.1500/- per hectare for 0.10 hectares of uncultivable land. The Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation atRs.1,80,000/- per hectare for cultivable land and Rs.90,000/- per hectarefor uncultivable land. Both, the acquiring body and the original claimantspreferred appeals before the High Court. By the impugned commonjudgment and order, the High Court has partly allowed the appeal preferredby the acquiring body and consequently has dismissed the appealpreferred by the original claimants by determining and awarding theamount of compensation at Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare for cultivable landand Rs.75,000/- per hectare for uncultivable land. Hence, the presentappeals 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 oftheir case to enhance the amount of compensation:

i)that the present acquisition is under a Special Act, i.e., theMaharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Act, 1961,whose object and purpose is to establish an IndustrialDevelopment Corporation. It is therefore submitted that theland 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 commonnotification dated 9.3.1995 for extension of industrial areaof Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, whichis a purely commercial/industrial purpose. The aforesaidpurpose of acquisition goes to the root of the matter andshould have been a guiding/deciding factor in determiningcompensation under the beneficial legislation such as LandAcquisition Act. It is submitted that the said overwhelmingfactor 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 issubmitted that the entire land in question is going to besoldas commercial plots to the prospective industries at acommercial rate, is a factor which is completely ignoredby the High Court. Reliance is placed upon the decisionof this Court in the case of Atma Singh v. State ofHaryana, (2008) 2 SCC 568 (para 5); A

B

C

D

EFG

H

Aiv)that the High Court has committed an error in merely relyingupon the sale deed at Ex. 41 in determining the marketvalue. It is submitted that the sale deed at Ex. 41 solelycould not have been relied upon by the High Court for thefollowing reasons:

(a) That the sale deed at Ex. 41 is in respect of purelyagricultural land whereas the acquisition in the instantcase is purely for commercial/industrial purpose; B

(b) That judicial notice can be taken of the fact that thesale consideration mentioned in the sale deeds arealways undervalued to save the stamp duty andregistration charges; C

(c) That the sale deed at Ex. 41 is almost three yearsprior to the present acquisition and does not reflectthe commercial/industrial market value of the landand is certainly not the sale consideration for whicha willing seller would part his property which is acommercial/industrial value.

D

v)that the land owners of village Lohara were awardedcompensation at Rs. 3,75,000/- per hectare. As by way ofcommon notification, the contiguous land of three villagesEwithout any boundaries, i.e., Bhoyar, Pangri and Loharawere acquired for a common purpose, i.e., for extension ofindustrial area, the High Court has committed a grave errorin determining and awarding a meagre compensation to theextent of Rs. 1,50,000/- per hectare. It is submitted that theFapproach of the High Court in classifying the land intodifferent categories is clearly contrary to the law laid downby this Court in the case of Sabhia Mohammed YusufAbdul Hamid Mulla (D) By Lrs. v. Special LandAcquisition Officer, (2012) 7 SCC 595 (para 22); Gvi)that the landowners in question whose land is acquired forcommon purpose by common notification should beuniformly compensated at the same rate and should not bediscriminated. Reliance is placed on the decision of thisCourt in the case of Land Acquisition Officer RevenueDivisional Officer v. L. Kamalamma (D) By Lrs., (1998)H2 SCC 385 (para 7).

vii)that the land in question is having a non-agriculturalApotentiality which can be judged considering the fact that itwas at a distance of 6-7 kilometers from the district placeof Yavatmal; it is adjacent to the wall of the MIDC area;rate at the relevant point of time for non-agricultural landwas around Rs. 20-25/- per sq. ft.; and it is perenniallyBirrigated land.

viii)it is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the original claimants that in case of some of theclaimants, the lands were situated just adjacent to villageLohara. It is therefore submitted that the original claimantsCshall be entitled to the compensation for the land acquiredat par with the landowners of village Lohara and/orconsidering the sale deeds produced on record with respectto the lands situated in village Lohara.

5. Making the above submissions and relying upon the aforesaiddecisions, it is prayed to allow the present appeals.

D

6. All these appeals are vehemently opposed by the learned counselappearing on behalf of the MIDC as well as the State, by submitting asunder:

i)that the High Court has passed a well-reasoned judgmentafter considering the facts of each case and consideringthe principles of law laid down by this Court relating tocomputation of compensation for land acquisition. It issubmitted that the claimants have not demonstrated anywrong application of a legal principle or overlooking of someimportant point/evidence affecting valuation by the HighCourt; E

F

ii)that the High Court has given cogent reasons for interferingwith the orders passed by the Reference Court grantingexorbitant compensation to the landowners/originalclaimants. It is submitted that the High Court has noted thereasons given by the Reference Court and thereafter hasgiven cogent reasons for reducing the amount ofcompensation in each case; G

iii)that the High Court has rightly relied upon the sale deed atEx. 41 dated 18.09.1992 by which one of the original H

claimants – Satish Nimodiya had purchased the acquiredagricultural land admeasuring 1.21 hectares in survey No.20/2 in village Bhoyar at Rs. 1,21,000/- per hectare andthen gave cumulative increase of 10% to arrive at the fairmarket value of the agricultural lands in 1995, which arethe subject matter of acquisition. It is submitted that theHigh Court has also considered that acquired agriculturallands have non-agricultural potential and after ascertainingthe location of the respective lands from the map of villageBhoyar, it has arrived at the fair market value of the landsand their non-agricultural potential in each case; A

B

C

iv)that the High Court has considered the settled legal principlerelating to computation of fair market value. It is submittedthat the landowners – original claimants had relied uponthe sale exemplars of small plots in village Lohara, wherean industrial estate exists and the orders passed by theDReference Court in the present cases. It is urged thatameticulous exercise has been made by the High Courtand considering the same exemplar produced at Ex. 41,which was with respect to very village of Bhoyar hasdiscarded the other evidence and has rightly determinedthe compensation by relying upon the sale exemplarEproduced at Ex. 41; D

v)that the acquired lands are agricultural lands. Considerablearea would be used for developmental infrastructure andthis would require huge developmental investment/expensesby MIDC. It is submitted that deduction of developmentcharges was required to be done, which has not been doneby the High Court; F

vi)

it is submitted that the High Court has granted a cumulativeincrease of 10% increase per year after noting that theReference court had granted 50% cumulative increase peryear, which was just contrary to the decision of this Courtin the case of Pehlad Ram v. Haryana UrbanDevelopment Authority, (2014) 14 SCC 778 by which itis observed and held that the cumulative increase of 10 to15% per year in the market value of the land may beaccepted. It is submitted that if the cumulative increase per G

H

year is increased to 12% from 10%, compensation wouldhave to be reduced considering development charges of33%, which has not been done in the present case. Thereis also no evidence to show that there was increasing trendin the sale price of agricultural land in village Bhoyar tojustify the increase from 10 to 12%.

6.1 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the acquiring body aswell as the State have relied upon the decisions of this Court in the casesof 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 acquiredland is best evidence for determining its fair market value.

6.2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the acquiring body aswell as the State have also relied upon the decisions of this Court in thecases of Tarlochan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 424;Hookiyar Singh v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (1996) 3 SCC766; and Subh Ram v. State of Haryana, (2010) 1 SCC 444, on theprinciple that the purpose of acquisition/future use of acquired land cannotbe considered for determination of compensation, and the decision ofthis Court in the case of Kanwar Singh v. Union of India, (1998) 8SCC 136, on the principle that the land in adjacent village or even thesame village may not possess the same quality and therefore cannotcommand common market price.

6.3 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the acquiring body aswell as the State have also relied upon the decisions of this Court in thecases of General Manager, ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai JivanbhaiPatel, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Pehlad Ram (supra); and Manoj Kumarv. State of Haryana, (2018) 13 SCC 96, on the cumulative increasewhich would vary from 10 to 15% per year in the market value of theland.

6.4 Making the above submissions and relying upon the aforesaiddecisions, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeals.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective partiesat length.

The High Court by the impugned common judgment and orderhas awarded different amounts of compensation for different lands A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Asituated 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 EstateBat adjoining village Lohara.

2. Notification u/s 1(3) r/w 31 of the Maharashtra IndustrialDevelopment Act, 1961 = 30.11.1994

3. Notification u/s 32(2) of the Maharashtra IndustrialCDevelopment Act, 1961, initiating L.A. proceedings =09.03.1995

DEFGH

At the outset, it is required to be noted that before the ReferenceCourt 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 landof village Lohara. However, the sale deeds with respect to the lands ofvillage Lohara were either of the period subsequent to the land acquired inthe present case and/or the same were with respect to small areas ofland. 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, theReference Court, relying upon the sale deed at Ex. 31, added 50%cumulative increase and awarded compensation, which has been modifiedby 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 mainlyrelied upon Ex. 41, the sale deed with respect to the land bearing SurveyNo. 20/2 of the very village Bhoyar dated 18.09.1992, by which one ofthe 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 theland in 1992 at Rs. 1,00,000/- per hectare. Considering three years gapbetween the sale exemplar dated 18.09.1992 (Ex. 41) and the landacquired in the present case, the High Court has added 10% increasecumulatively for three years and has determined the fair market valueof the acquired land at Rs. 1,30,000/- per hectare. That thereafter,considering the fact that the lands acquired have non-agriculturalpotentiality and are situated nearer to the industrial area, the High Courthas further added 15% and has determined and awarded thecompensation at the rate of Rs. 2,00,000/- per hectare for cultivableland. In some of the cases, the same is reduced to Rs.1,80,000/- perhectare 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 withrespect to the land bearing Survey No. 20/2 was with respect to thevery village Bhoyar which was the only sale exemplar of the same villageand other sale exemplars/sale deeds were with respect to another villageLohara and also with respect to small pieces of land, we are of theconsidered view that the High Court has rightly relied upon and consideredthe sale exemplar at Ex. 41 while determining the compensation in thepresent cases with respect to the lands of very village Bhoyar.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A However, at the same time, bearing in mind the decision of thisCourt in the case of Pehlad Ram (supra), by which this Court hasobserved and held that a cumulative increase of 10 to 15% per year inthe market value of the land may be accepted, in the facts andcircumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that instead of 10%cumulative increase as adopted by the High Court, if 12% cumulativeBincrease would have been adopted, it would have been just and properand in the fitness of things.

A

11. Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the claimants thatthe lands in question were acquired for the industrial corporation andwere to be used for the industries/commercial purpose and accordinglyCthe compensation should have been paid is concerned, what is requiredto be considered is that the lands in question were agricultural lands.Even for the purpose of industrial use and/or industries, the corporationis required to incur the expenditure towards its development and thereforethe development charges would have to be deducted while determiningDthe compensation. However, in the present case, the development chargesare not deducted. Even otherwise, the future use of the acquired landcannot be the main criteria to determine the compensation for the landsacquired.

12. In the case of Hookiyar Singh (supra), it is observed andheld that while determining the compensation, the future use of the landEis not the relevant consideration.

12.1 In the case of Subh Ram (supra), it is observed and heldthat the purpose of acquisition is also a relevant factor. However, thesaid observation may not apply in all cases and all circumstances as thegeneral rule is that the landowner is being compensated for what he hasFlost and not with reference to the purpose of acquisition. It is furtherobserved and held that the purpose of acquisition can never be a factorto increase the market value of the acquired land.

13. Now, so far as the compensation determined differently fordifferent lands acquired with respect to the same village Bhoyar, rangingGfrom Rs. 1,50,000/- per hectare to Rs. 2,00,000/- per hectare is concerned,different market value/compensation can be determined for differentlands located differently in the same village or locality. In the case ofTarlochan Singh (supra), it is observed and held that it is commonknowledge that all the lands in the same village may not possess thesame quality and command a common market price.H

13.1 In the case of Basant Kumar (supra), it is observed andheld that even in the same village, no two lands command same marketvalue. The lands abutting the main road or national highway wouldcommand 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 landbeing similar to the land on the main road or highway.

13.2 In the case of Kanwar Singh (supra), it is observed andheld that generally there would be difference in the potentiality of landssituated in two different villages.

14. In the present case, as such, there is already a sale exemplarat Ex. 41 with respect to very village Bhoyar which as observedhereinabove can be said to be the best exemplar while determining thecompensation with respect to the lands acquired of the same villageBhoyar. The High Court has rightly relied upon and considered the saledeed at Ex. 41 being land survey no. 20/2 and determined the marketvalue at Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare in the year 1992 and has rightlydetermined the compensation relying upon the sale exemplar producedat Ex. 41.

However, at the same time, as observed hereinabove, instead of10% cumulative increase, the High Court ought to have added 12%increase cumulatively for about three years. To that extent, the impugnedcommon judgment and order passed by the High Court is required to bemodified and the appeals preferred by the original claimants are requiredto be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Thus, the market value ofthe acquired land would be Rs. 1,40,492/- per hectare and after roundingoff, it will become Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare. Further adding 50% towardsthe non-agricultural potentiality, the fair market value for determiningthe compensation would be Rs. 2,25,000/- per hectare in the cases wherethe High Court has determined and awarded the compensation at Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare. There shall be corresponding reduction in thecompensation with respect to other lands as made by the High Courtlooking to the location of the lands. Thus, wherever the High Court hasdetermined the compensation at Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare, it will cometo Rs. 2,00,000/- per hectare and wherever the High Court hasdetermined the compensation at Rs. 1,50,000/- per hectare, it will cometo Rs. 1,75,000/- per hectare. The appeals preferred by the claimantsare required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A15. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons statedabove, all these appeals are partly allowed. The respective appellants –original claimants are entitled to the compensation as under, with allstatutory benefits, which may be available to them under the Act.

BCDEFGH

RAMRAO SHANKAR TAPASE v. MAHARASHTRAINDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

However, so far as Civil Appeal Nos. 2746-2747/2022 and CivilAppeal No. 2745/2022 are concerned, as there was a delay of 613 and438 days respectively in preferring the appeals, it is directed that theclaimants shall not be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount ofcompensation 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 noorder as to costs.

Devika Gujral and Amarendra Kumar(Assisted by : Iram Jan, LCRA)

Appeals partly allowed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H