Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Harishchandra Namdeorao Nikole, was the owner of 1.50 H.R. land in Survey No. 14/1 of village Wadnergangal, Tq. Daryapur, Distt. Amravati. The respondent, State of Maharashtra, acquired the land for extension of Gaonthan. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 7/9/1989, followed by a Section 6 notification on 10/1/1990. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 20/3/1992, granting compensation at Rs. 15,000 per hectare. Dissatisfied, the appellant filed a reference under Section 18 seeking enhancement to Rs. 2,50,000 per hectare. The Reference Court dismissed the reference on 9/8/2002, leading to the present appeal. The appellant argued that the land had potential for non-agricultural use, evidenced by an application for NA permission made before the Section 4 notification, which was rejected only because the land was to be acquired. The appellant also produced agreements to sell plots at Rs. 3,000 per guntha (Exhs. 28 and 29) and a sale deed (Exh. 46) of adjoining land (Survey No. 15/2) dated 8/12/1986, which showed the market value. The respondent contended that the rejection of NA permission indicated lack of potentiality and that the sale deed was not properly proved. The High Court held that the rejection of NA permission was not relevant because it was based on the impending acquisition, not on the land's suitability. The purpose of acquisition (extension of Gaonthan) itself indicated non-agricultural potential. The court found that the sale deed Exh. 46 was proved by the appellant and was a comparable instance, as the land was adjoining. The court also noted that the agreements to sell (Exhs. 28 and 29) were not challenged. Accordingly, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the Reference Court's judgment, and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 3,000 per guntha (equivalent to Rs. 3,00,000 per hectare) with all statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, including solatium, additional compensation, and interest.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Compensation - Potentiality - Land acquired for extension of Gaonthan has potential for non-agricultural use - Rejection of NA permission due to impending acquisition does not negate potentiality - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 23 - Held that the land's potentiality must be assessed based on surrounding circumstances and purpose of acquisition, not merely on rejection of NA permission (Paras 4-6). B) Land Acquisition - Compensation - Comparable Sale Deed - Sale deed of adjoining land (Exh. 46) is relevant for determining market value - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 23 - Held that the Reference Court erred in discarding the sale deed merely because it was not proved by the vendor, as the claimant proved its execution and contents (Paras 5-7). C) Land Acquisition - Compensation - Enhancement - Claimant entitled to compensation at Rs. 3,000 per guntha based on agreements to sell (Exhs. 28, 29) and sale deed (Exh. 46) - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 23 - Held that the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per guntha with statutory benefits (Paras 7-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Reference Court erred in dismissing the claim for enhanced compensation by ignoring the potentiality of the acquired land for non-agricultural purposes and the comparable sale deed.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Judgment and award dated 9/8/2002 set aside. Appellant entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per guntha (equivalent to Rs. 3,00,000 per hectare) with all statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, including solatium, additional compensation, and interest.
Law Points
- Potentiality of land for non-agricultural use
- Comparable sale deed as basis for compensation
- Rejection of NA permission not determinative of potentiality
- Land acquired for extension of Gaonthan indicates non-agricultural potential
